Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • Maternity & Paternity
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • Maternity & Paternity
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Gig economyLatest NewsEmployment contracts

Addison Lee refused permission to appeal worker status ruling

by Ashleigh Webber 1 Apr 2019
by Ashleigh Webber 1 Apr 2019

Addison Lee has been denied permission to appeal against the ruling that its drivers are workers and not self-employed.

It is the first time that a gig economy organisation has been refused the opportunity to appeal against a workers’ rights decision.

Employment status

Courts should fast-track gig economy cases: Frank Field

National Gallery lecturers win ‘worker’ status

Could Hermes’ self-employed-plus status revolutionise the gig economy

Last year the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld a previous decision that the taxi and courier company’s cycle couriers are workers and not self-employed, giving them the right to benefits including the national minimum wage and holiday pay.

The Independent Workers Union of Great Britain (IWGB) brought the case on behalf of bicycle courier Chris Gascoigne. The EAT and the Central London Employment Tribunal found that Addison Lee had been denying Gascoigne basic workers’ rights by classing him as an independent contractor.

Cycle couriers would be allocated delivery jobs when they logged into an app. There was no option in the app to refuse a job, although couriers were able to refuse in exceptional circumstances.

Addison Lee had argued that Gascoigne was under no legal obligation to work as he would only accept jobs offered to him when logged on to the system.

However, the EAT found there was “mutuality of obligation” between the company and cycle couriers, meaning that individuals were usually required to accept work when they logged into the app.

Gascoigne was also required to re-sign his contract every three months, which included agreeing to being classified as an independent contractor.

IWGB general secretary Jason Moyer-Lee said: “After several years of a delay strategy Addison Lee has now come to the end of the road. The company is unlawfully depriving their couriers of employment rights and its defence is unarguable. It’s time for Addison Lee to accept it has lost and start giving its couriers holidays, pensions and other basic rights.”

In a separate case last year, the EAT ruled that Addison Lee’s drivers were not self-employed. The company claimed its drivers chose their own hours so did not qualify for access to traditional employment benefits that those with “worker” or “employee” employment status would receive. However, the EAT found that they were workers as they were required to agree to “unrealistic” terms and conditions and had to hire a vehicle in the company’s livery.

Addison Lee was not available for comment.

Ashleigh Webber
Ashleigh Webber

Ashleigh is editor at OHW+ and part of the Personnel Today editorial team. Prior to joining Personnel Today in 2018, she covered the road transport sector for Commercial Motor and Motor Transport.

previous post
City law partner suing for age discrimination
next post
O2 increases paid paternity leave to 14 weeks

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

You may also like

Deliveroo signs deal with union GMB to cover...

12 May 2022

Queen’s Speech: absence of employment bill leaves organisations...

10 May 2022

Union urges Uber to make pensions Sharia compliant

20 Apr 2022

Employment Bill could face further delay

4 Apr 2022

Zero-hours work ‘tightens grip of structural racism’ on...

9 Mar 2022

Pimlico Plumbers holiday pay ruling: four steps for...

9 Mar 2022

Pimlico Plumbers loses holiday pay appeal in case...

1 Feb 2022

Status of Workers Bill heads to House of...

31 Jan 2022

False self-employment case adds to worker status conundrum

28 Jan 2022

Bill to create single worker status enters final...

27 Jan 2022
  • Apprenticeships are the solution to your recruitment problems PROMOTED | Apprenticeships have the pulling power...Read more
  • What it really means to be mentally fit PROMOTED | What is mental fitness...Read more
  • How music can help to ease anxiety at work PROMOTED | A lot has happened since March 2020, hasn’t it?...Read more
  • Why now is the time to plug the unhealthy gap PROMOTED | We’ve all heard the term ‘health is wealth’...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2022

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2022 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • Maternity & Paternity
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+