NEWS | Round-up


Fitter takes legal action against Sharps over employment rights


he cannot attend a job.


Being classed as officially employed by Sharps would give Lockwood certain benefits he does not currently get, such as holiday pay, the right to the legal minimum wage, as well as entitlement to statutory sick pay. Lockwood believes that Sharps has used “unlawful loopholes” to take advantage of subcontractors, adding that he feels “totally failed and disrespected” by the company after his long years of service.


A SUBCONTRACTED fitter wor - king for Sharps Bedrooms is taking legal action to be classed as an employee with the right to claim holiday and sick pay. David Lockwood (pictured) has worked as a fitter for Sharps for around 30 years,


installing prefabricated


fitted furniture such as wardrobes and cupboards.


Lockwood alleges that Sharps is denying him the right to work for competitor companies, as well as subjecting him to financial penalties – which he argues could define his status as an official, employed worker of the company.


According to Lockwood, Sharps controls the dates, times and fees for the work he undertakes, and reserves the right to impose a financial penalty if he gives less than 72 hours’ notice if


Lockwood has engaged legal firm Leigh Day to help fight his case. Senior associate solicitor at the firm, Ryan Bradshaw, said that despite Lockwood’s almost three decades of service, Sharps treats him “as a subcontractor and are in control of David’s work, setting the fees and parameters of his work”.


“Furthermore,” Bradshaw said,”they are allegedly assuring customers that David is a member of their staff, yet putting ‘subcontractor’ on his pay statements and terms of engagement.” He added: “We hope that by this


bringing legal claim, David’s


employment status can be settled and he will have access to the holiday pay and sick pay that he is owed.” Leigh Day says that despite treating him as a subcontractor, Lockwood alleges that Sharps has told customers that fittings would be carried out by their “own personnel”. Additionally, the legal firm insists that


Review your subcontracting policy to stay legal, urges BiKBBI


THE BRITISH Institute of Kitchen Bedroom and Bathroom Installation (BiKBBI) has called for KBB businesses to review their relationships and how they work with subcontractors, following the legal action brought against Sharps Bedrooms over workers’ rights.


Referring to the ongoing case, BiKBBI chief executive Damien Walters (pictured) said: “While we are unable to comment on this specific case for legal reasons, I can confirm that following two relatively recent high-profile cases (Smith vs Pimlico Plumbers (2018) and Farrar vs Uber (2021)) BiKBBI issued industry guidance, as clearly these cases set precedent for potential future claims.” In February of 2021, a legal ruling decided that Uber drivers must be classed as workers with rights to holiday pay and the minimum wage. This was described as a landmark ruling in the media, that many anticipated would set a precedent for similar ‘gig economy’ jobs. Following the Uber ruling, BiKBBI warned that “the model of subcontracting installers to fit new kitchens, bedrooms and bathrooms will now be open to scrutiny”. The Institute recommended retailers audit their relationships with subcontracted installers and, if necessary, adapt their working practices to avoid being vulnerable to employment tribunals.


4


In light of the ongoing Sharps legal case, the BiKBBI has reaffirmed its position advising businesses that engage subcontractors to “review their relationships as an immediate priority”. Walters emphasised that many kitchen, bathroom and bedroom businesses operate using subcontractors, and in most instances, these relationships are “perfectly legitimate and subsequently would not be subject to employment rights scrutiny”. However, he pointed out that in some situations, “a particular arrangement between both parties may override the written contract and, if a business treats a subcontractor as an employee, then the subcontractor may be entitled to employment rights”. Walters acknowledged that the institute “fully supports” KBB retailers that operate a subcontracted model for their installations, along with retailers that choose to employ their own installers full time. Furthermore, he said that the Institute believes that “businesses should be allowed to negotiate mutually beneficial, lawful and fair trading terms between themselves”. He concluded: “If terms are not fair, and that subsequently leads to exploitation of labour, then these businesses should face scrutiny and those affected be covered by employment law protection.”


• February 2024


Sharps makes deductions from his wages not only for tax but also workplace liability insurance, under a non-negotiable agreement. The company apparently labelled this as a ‘Company Subcontractor Insurance Scheme’. Lockwood’s case is being suppor- ted by community interest company Law for Change, which funds public interest cases it believes will effect lasting social changes. Law for Change’s founder, Stephen Kinsella, says that the organisation is proud to support Lockwood in his fight for workers’ rights. “Our mission is to back legal actions that have a clear social benefit and the erosion of workers’ rights under sham self-employed contracts is an area we


are particularly concerned about. “It is clear that a positive outcome for David and the clarification of his employment status could not only secure better contract rights for him, but also benefit workers we believe are being denied the benefits and protections they are entitled to.” Lockwood’s legal claim was filed at the Employment Tribunal in August 2023. Since this time, Sharps has informed the Employment Tribunal it denies the claim. kbbreview


asked Sharps for a


comment, but has yet to receive a response. Speaking to the Guardian, a Sharps spokesman said: “We disagree with the claims made by David Lockwood and Leigh Day and will be robustly challenging any legal action.”


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84