Recently, the Supreme Court decided that a plumber was a ‘worker’ despite his contract stating he was an independent contractor.
The Court provided that his personal service to do the job was of importance to their decision together with a limited right of substitution. The Court came to the conclusion that the overall facts of the case pointed away from the plumber being regarded as a truly independent contractor, due to Pimlico Plumbers exercising tight control over the plumber. A few considerations the Court relied upon were:
- The plumber wore a uniform;
- Had an ID card;
- branded van requirements; and
- severe payment terms.
