This decision follows other high profile cases in this area, including the Uber case where it was found that Uber drivers were also workers and not self-employed.
Addison Lee engages approximately 4,000 drivers in London. The contractual documents between the company and its drivers state that the drivers are self-employed. As a result, the drivers are not provided with paid holiday and fall outside the protections offered by the Minimum Wage Regulations. The three drivers in this case argued that they were in fact "workers", even though the contractual documents said otherwise.
The Employment Tribunal found in favour of the drivers. The test the Tribunal applied was as follows:
In this case the key questions were around personal service and whether the drivers were in business for themselves (3 and 4 above). Some of the relevant findings of fact were:
The Tribunal found that when the drivers were logged onto Addison Lee's system they were working for the purposes of accruing holiday and the right to receive the national minimum wage.
If you engage individuals on a self-employed or contractor basis, you should think carefully about the everyday obligations that you place on these individuals. Employment Tribunals will look at the working relationship in practice, as well as any written contract that may exist. If the written contract is held to be a sham, it will not protect you from a finding of 'worker' status.
You should also think carefully about how you structure the services you receive from your workforce. It should be noted that as in previous cases such as Uber and CitySprint, the Employment Tribunal limited its decision to the particular facts of this case. It may therefore be possible for Addison Lee and others to adapt their working practices to avoid liability in the future.
By way of an update, Uber have appealed the finding against them and that appeal has now been heard. Judgement is awaited and we will update you on the outcome when it is known.