REWARD INSIGHT
Worker status, PTSD, PHI
NicolaMullineux, senior employment specialist for Peninsula, reviews the decisions in three cases
Addison Lee v Lange and Ors In this case, the employment appeal tribunal (EAT) was asked to rule on the employment status of private hire taxi drivers, and specifically whether these individuals were classed as workers when they were logged into the company’s driving app. The case involved a number of drivers who worked for Addison Lee. They were employed under a driver contract which expressly stated that they were recognised as ‘independent contractors’ (i.e. self-employed) and would act as sub- contractors for Addison Lee when bookings were made by the company’s customers. The contracts went on to state that there was no obligation on Addison Lee to offer work to the drivers, or for the drivers to accept work when it was offered. Additionally, the contracts stated that it was up to the driver to decide what times they would be available for work and to do so they would need to log into the company’s app, after which they would be allocated driving jobs. At the start of the relationship drivers were provided with an induction period, during which training was provided outlining the organisation’s preferred method of working as well as rules around dress codes and playing music whilst driving. As part of the working relationship, most individuals drove specific branded vehicles that were hired through a firm
associated with Addison Lee. It was estimated that drivers would be required to work around 25–30 hours a week in order to pay off the cost of hiring these vehicles. ...clear ‘mutuality of obligation’ present between both parties... Drivers were provided with a hand-held computer, which notified them of a driving job, and informed of the expectation that jobs would be accepted when they were offered. They were informed that drivers who wished to turn down jobs had to give a reason which if not deemed acceptable could log off whenever they wanted, in reality they were expected to work up to sixty hours a week. In instances where individuals were logged off for more than three or four days the driver would be contacted to find out why this was the case. Three drivers initially took Addison Lee to an employment tribunal (ET) and contended that they were being incorrectly labelled as self-employed and should instead be recognised as workers under section 230(3)(b) of the Employment meant they could face a sanction. Although drivers were told they
Rights Act 1996. The ET applied the appropriate test and determined that the drivers should be considered as workers. In coming to their decision the ET held the existing contract demonstrated the inequality of bargaining power in the contractual relationship. The ET placed particular emphasis on the fact drivers were required to personally complete work for Addison Lee once they were logged on and they remained under the company’s control at this time, even in between jobs. Addison Lee appealed this decision to the EAT, basing their argument on the fact that drivers were under no obligation to accept work as they could refuse jobs at any time. However, the EAT rejected this argument and looked behind the wording of the contract into the true nature of the employment relationship. When doing so they found that once logged on drivers could only reject jobs in occasional circumstances and that sanctions could be imposed if the drivers did not accept the work. The EAT held that there was clear ‘mutuality of obligation’ present between both parties, which meant the drivers could not be considered self-employed. This decision is another important reference point for employers tasked with a challenge over employment statement and further reiterates a tribunal’s commitment to looking beyond any pre- existing contracts in favour of evaluating the true nature of the working relationship.
| Professional in Payroll, Pensions and Reward | February 2019 | Issue 47 34
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker