This week's Employment Tribunal decision in favour of workers at the National Gallery may be confused as a victory for the gig-economy, but we're still some way from any definitive resolution.
The NG27, as they have been dubbed, are only claiming a partial victory as they leave the Tribunal room. Successful in their claim for worker status, they know that there was the chance of so much more. However, the declaration has opened up the potential for more claims still to come.
The National Gallery have been clear that this was about clarifying the law, which has been confusing for many employers unsure of their legal and tax obligations. The decision to declare the NG27 workers has opened the opportunity to claim holiday pay, sick pay, pension and certain family friendly rights that they say they were not provided with, despite being paid through the Gallery's payroll.
It is important to note that the employees were unsuccessful in their claims for unfair dismissal, suggesting that although they were workers, they did not secure the enhanced status of employees.
Both legal teams will now be picking over the judgment and deciding whether to appeal or accept this first instance decision. For now, the case provides a little reassurance for the NG27, but more uncertainty for the many.
If you have any concerns about employment status or dealing with employee issues generally, please contact me at email@example.com.
A group of art and history experts who worked at the National Gallery have won a bid to be given workers' rights. The 27 educators, who call themselves the NG27, gave talks, lectures and workshops at the central London museum until October 2017. They said they were not given any paid holiday, sick pay, pension or maternity pay despite paying taxes through the payroll. The National Gallery had claimed the educators were all freelancers. After an employment tribunal in central London, Judge A M Snelson ruled on Thursday it was "unsustainable" for the gallery to describe the workers as self-employed. The NG27 also made claims of unfair dismissal, but these were dismissed by the judge.