The IWGB supported and helped Mags Dewhurst bring forward her case against CitySprint to an Employment Tribunal that considered whether the claimant was a worker of CitySprint as opposed to being self-employed or a 'contractor'.
(meta data) TITLE:  Smile... you're a worker 0370 270 6000 Contact us #### already registered? Please sign in with your existing account details. Email address Sign in with LinkedIn #### need to register? Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com. Privacy statement - Terms and conditions Register with LinkedIn Forgotten your password? ### your account has been suspended You have exceeded the maximum number of login attempts for this email address and your account has been locked. An email has been sent to member of Browne Jacobson's web team and some one will be contacting you over the next two working days with details of how to change your password. Search Mobile Contact us View your account page Update your details View our privacy policy #### already registered? Please sign in with your existing account details. Email address Sign in with LinkedIn #### need to register? Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com. Privacy statement - Terms and conditions Register with LinkedIn Forgotten your password? # smile! you're a worker ###### remove content? Are you sure you want to remove this item from you pinned content? 11 January 2017 Do you expect your contractors to: wear a uniform work when they say that they will work follow directions? If yes, following the judgment in Dewhurst v CitySprint UK Ltd, there is a real risk that they are in fact workers within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and entitled to the protections that the legislation affords. The Employment Tribunal considered whether the claimant, a bicycle courier, was a 'worker' of CitySprint as opposed to being self-employed or a 'contractor' (which was how she was described in the contract). The Employment Tribunal found worker status even though: in theory, CitySprint was not obliged to provide work and the claimant was under no obligation to accept it the claimant could, on paper, send a substitute the claimant did not get paid if she did not work. The decision demonstrates the ability of the tribunal to look behind the paperwork, or 'window dressing', and determine a case on the reality of the relationship between the parties. It is also one of a number indicating a trend that is moving away from the 'gig economy'. Will Citysprint UK Ltd, like Uber, appeal? We will keep you updated. The moral of the story is that if an individual is considered to be self-employed, the reality of their relationship with the business must mirror the contractual documents drafted to give the relationship that effect. The greater the control of the business, the greater the prospect of worker or employee status. ## related opinions #### Court of Appeal confirms all employment tribunal judgments must be published on the register, except in national security cases Under the ET Rules, all judgments and accompanying written reasons must be published on a pubic register which the general public can access online. View blog #### Marriott International: a look behind the ICO's £99m fine and what this means for corporate acquisitions Last month, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) announced notice of its intention to fine (NOI) Marriott International, Inc. £99m for infringements of the GDPR. View blog #### SFO fail to secure individual criminal convictions following Deferred Prosecution Agreement On 16 July 2019 the Serious Fraud Office released details of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement reached with Sarclad Ltd in July 2016. View blog #### Supreme Court backs employers seeking to enforce restrictive covenants: Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd The Supreme Court in Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd has determined that where post-termination restrictive covenants (i.e. "non-compete" clauses) in employment contracts go further than reasonably necessary to protect an employer's business interests, it can apply the 'blue pencil test,' severing the offending words and leaving the remaining enforceable clause in place. View blog View all blogs ## mailing list sign up Select which mailings you would like to receive from us. Sign up ## quick links Commercial contracts Corporate & commercial Disputes & litigation In house legal Information technology Private sector Transport and logistics ######
train20317
Independent Workers' Union of Great Britain
Dewhurst vs CitySprint.