Claimant v Pimlico Plumbers Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim for automatic unfair dismissal (whistleblowing) not determined at this preliminary hearing; to be heard at a later date following the tribunal's finding that the claimant was a worker.
Claim for whistleblowing detriment not determined at this preliminary hearing. Respondent conceded that the claimant was a worker under s.43K ERA 1996 for the purposes of the whistleblowing claims.
Claim for unpaid wages not determined at this preliminary hearing. The tribunal found the claimant to be a worker under s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996, meaning the claim can proceed to a full merits hearing.
Claim for unpaid holiday not determined at this preliminary hearing. The tribunal found the claimant to be a worker under the Working Time Regulations 1998, meaning the claim can proceed.
Claim for non-payment of national minimum wage not determined at this preliminary hearing. The tribunal found the claimant to be a worker under s.54(3) NMWA 1998, meaning the claim can proceed.
Facts
Mr Rose, a qualified plumber operating through his limited company JDM Renovations Ltd, contracted with Pimlico Plumbers from October 2020. Although the written contract was between Pimlico and JDM, Mr Rose was required to make himself available Monday to Friday 8am-6pm, wear Pimlico uniform, drive a Pimlico van, use Pimlico equipment, and present to customers as a Pimlico employee. He was paid 50% of customer fees minus various deductions. In practice, all dealings were with Mr Rose personally. He could refuse jobs but this was monitored. He was dismissed following concerns about his conduct and territorial restrictions he sought to impose. Pimlico required all engineers to operate through limited companies and did not offer direct employment.
Decision
The tribunal found that Mr Rose was a limb (b) worker under s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996 and equivalent provisions. Despite the written contract being with his limited company, the tribunal applied the Autoclenz and Uber principles and found that the reality was a contract between Pimlico and Mr Rose personally. There was mutuality of obligation, an umbrella contract, and an obligation of personal service (limited right to substitute with approval was consistent with personal service). Mr Rose was highly integrated into Pimlico's business with limited autonomy. Even if he had been in business on his own account, Pimlico was not his client or customer but rather he was integrated into and subordinate to Pimlico's undertaking.
Practical note
Requiring workers to contract through personal service companies does not avoid worker status if the reality is that the individual is the true contracting party; tribunals will look through corporate structures where they are used as a device to avoid employment protections.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6021933/2024
- Decision date
- 9 December 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Plumber
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister