The Taylor Review - 'Good Work'

On 11th July 2017 Matthew Taylor published his review of 'Modern Working Practices' with the final version of the document being called the 'Good Work' report. At it's outset the report states the following:

'The work of this Review is based on a single overriding ambition: All work in the UK economy should be fair and decent with realistic scope for development and fulfilment.'

The backdrop to this report is the evolution of the 'gig' economy, characterised by companies such as Uber and Deliveroo and the hiring of allegedly self-employed persons to perform all manner of tasks from taxi rides to delivering your take-away meal. While this is the media's perception of a gig worker, nonetheless the majority of such workers work in administration, finance and other office related roles.

Problematically, however, employment law hasn't really caught up with the question of what rights these gig workers should have. Initially, such workers were regarded (by their paymasters at least) as self-employed (with no right to the National Minimum Wage nor rest breaks nor holiday pay) but recent Tribunal decisions have debunked this theory.

To an extent the Taylor Review builds on the spate of these Tribunal decisions that have dealt with the argument that those regarded as self-employed in the gig economy are in fact 'workers', with far greater legal protections than their hiring companies first envisaged (like the right to protection from unlawful discrimination, as an example).

At this stage it is unclear how much of the review will end up altering the law as applied to the gig economy or elsewhere. A good deal of the proposals are easy to state but very hard to implement legally, with further complicated drafting required and more law on the statute book. One wonders why new law is necessary at all when a legally binding code of practice could have been issued to gig workers and their hirers explaining what rights could be expected of the individuals when undertaking their various engagements. A legally binding code could be just as effective as anything other legal measure.

As matters stand then, the Taylor Review is a substantial piece of work designed to bring a certain aspects of employment law into the modern post-recession world but it could be some time before gig workers are properly recognised by our legal system.

Below is a list of some of Matthew Taylor's proposals:

1. Keep the distinction between employees and workers, but rename workers who are not employees ‘dependent contractors’ (Page 35)
2. Amend the legislation defining employees and workers so that case law principles are reflected in the legislation itself – possibly with supporting secondary legislation (page 35)
3. Amend the law on the National Minimum Wage to make it clear that gig-economy workers allocated for through an app are undertaking a form of output work and will not have to be paid NMW for each hour logged on when there is no work available (Page 38)
4. Treat workers treated as ’employed’ for the purposes of tax status (page 38)
5. Extend the right to a written statement of terms to workers as well as employees (page 39)
6. Require written statements to be given on day one of employment (page 39)
7. Extend written statement of terms to include description of statutory rights (page 39)
8. Give a stand alone right to compensation if employer has not given written statement (page 39)
9. Consider increasing the rate of the National Minimum Wage for hours that are not guaranteed by the employer (page 44)
10. Preserve continuity of employment where any gap in employment is less than one month, rather than one week (page 45)
11. Allow holiday pay to be paid on a ‘rolled up basis’ (page 47)
12. Give agency workers the right to request a direct contract with the end user after 12 months on an assignment (page 48)
13. Require larger employers to report on their overall workforce structure – including requests from zero-hours workers for regular hours (page 55)
14. Allow claimants to being a claim to ET (without fee) to determine employment status as a preliminary issue prior to substantive claim (page 62)
15. Place burden on employer in ET claim to prove that claimant is not an employee / worker (page 62)
16. Consider allowing flexible working requests to cover temporary as well as permanent changes to contracts (page 95)
17. Reform SSP to make it a proper employument right available to all workers – accrued in line with length of service (page 99)
18. Give individuals a right to return to work following long-term sickness absence (page 99)