Pimlico Plumbers Ltd and another (Appellants) v Smith (Respondent)

[2018] UKSC 29
UKSC 2017/0053
Pimlico Plumbers Ltd and another (Appellants) v Smith (Respondent)
The respondent is a plumber who undertook plumbing work for the first appellant between 25th August 2005 and 28th April 2011. The first appellant is a full-service plumbing and maintenance company and the second appellant is its founder and owner. At the material time, the first appellant had 75 office staff and a bank of 125 contractors (including the respondent) that it could call on to carry out jobs for its customers. The respondent commenced proceedings in the Employment Tribunal on 1st August 2011, claiming that he was unfairly or wrongly dismissed by the first appellant. He also claims direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments. A pre-hearing review was listed to address whether the respondent was an employee of the first appellant, whether he was a worker, whether his working situation met the definition of "employment" in section 83(2)(a) of the Equality Act 2010, or whether he was self-employed in business on his own account. The Employment Tribunal decided that the respondent was not an employee, but that he was a worker and his working situation met the definition of "employment" in section 83(2)(a) of the Equality Act. Accordingly, it had jurisdiction to consider the complaints of direct disability discrimination, discrimination by reason of failure to make reasonable adjustments, and in respect of holiday pay as well as in respect of unauthorised deductions from wages. The appellants’ appeals to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal were dismissed.
The issues are:
Whether the respondent was a 'worker' within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and Regulation 2 of the Working Time Regulations 1998;
Whether the respondent was in "employment" within s.83(2)(a) of the Equality Act 2010.
The Supreme Court unanimously dismisses the appeal. Lord Wilson gives the judgment with which Lady Hale, Lord Hughes, Lady Black and Lord Lloyd-Jones agree. The tribunal was entitled to conclude that Mr Smith qualified as a ‘worker’ under s.230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (and by analogy the relevant provisions of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and the Equality Act 2010), and his substantive claims can proceed to be heard.