header-logo header-logo

18 November 2020
Issue: 7911 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Employment
printer mail-detail

PPE victory for gig economy workers

The government has not done enough to protect gig economy and precarious workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, the High Court has held in a landmark judgment

The Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain (IWGB), which brought the judicial review, said one in ten adults who work have gig economy jobs, which accounts for about 4.7 million people.

Ruling in R (IWGB) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Ors [2020] EWHC 3050 (Admin), Mr Justice Chamberlain found the UK has failed to grant workers in the gig economy the rights they are entitled to under EU Health and Safety law. This includes the right to be provided with Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) by the business they are working for, and the right to stop work in response to serious and imminent danger.

According to Old Square Chambers, these protections have only been extended to employees, ‘whereas the court found that their scope is wide enough to also include workers, as defined in s 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, often called “limb b workers”’. Old Square’s Ijeoma Omambala QC and Cyril Adjei acted for the IWGB.

In his judgment, Chamberlain J said: ‘This gap in protection has existed ever since the deadline for transposing the Directives, 31 December 1992, but the claimant contends that the COVID-19 pandemic gives it a particular salience and significance.

‘The workers whom the claimant represents include taxi and private hire drivers and chauffeurs, bus and coach drivers, and van drivers. All these occupations have higher than average rates of death from COVID-19 and, the claimant submits, particular needs for the kinds of health and safety measures the Directives require.’

He held the government has ‘failed properly to implement Art 8(4) and (5) of the Framework Directive and Art 3 of the PPE Directive with respect to limb (b) workers’.

 

Issue: 7911 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll