Once again, the Courts have identified a group of individuals working in the gig economy as "workers" and not independent contractors, thereby entitling them to valuable employment rights, including holiday pay and national minimum wage. Critical to the Court's decision in this case was the limited ability of the couriers to send another in their place, once they had accepted work. In the Court's view, this limited right of substitution was incompatible with the couriers being self-employed.
The case is reminiscent of Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith, where the plumbers' limited right to substitute also put an end to any argument they were self-employed. In both cases, the couriers and plumbers could only send a substitute from their pool of colleagues. It will be rare that a branded organisation will allow a non-vetted and inducted individual to be sent in substitution, especially where the work involves representing the organisation and carrying out a service to particular standards. We are, therefore, likely to see even greater numbers of gig economy workers being entitled to ever valuable employment rights, putting increasing pressure on the gig economy model.