A recent supreme court decision about Uber drivers had given new hope to contractors working through a limited company. This decision, which was issued Friday, stated that contractors could not be denied rights because they are designated as a contractor or a partner.
Judge Lord Leggatt said that the purpose of employment legislation is to protect workers from unfair treatment, not to determine their status alone. Courts have increasingly defended contractors, much to the chagrin of HMRC.
This decision means that Uber drivers will be considered workers now. They will be entitled to National minimum wage, paid holidays, and unlawful discrimination coverage. This case did not change any existing points of law but did help identify who is working inside of IR35 and who is working outside of IR35.
For contractors who are working correctly outside of IR35, this court decision helps cement the lines between contractors and employees. Uber had been arguing that uber drivers are allowed to refuse rides, but the court stated correctly that they are not able to refuse employment. This means that contractors will not have to argue this part of their contracts in future court cases without examples to back them up.
What Does This Mean For Contractors?
This case is crucial to help define the right to refuse means for contractors. Since Uber drivers were found to be employees, this means that the right to refuse work is not necessarily the key factor in deciding these cases. What is instead in play is the obligation to do some work. Obligation, as in the question of MOO being in play, is key in deciding whether or not a contractor is inside of or outside of IR35.
This case should also illustrate to employers that determinations cannot always be made easily. The cost of incorrect determinations comes to bear on end-clients as well as contractors.
The difficulties of IR35 continue to compound, and determinations become clearer in some areas but less clear in others. Contactors are urged to make certain that they know their own status and that they advocate for themselves in the case that contracts need to be reviewed prior to the roll-out of IR35.
