The Pantomime Theatre Case: Slights & Others v Crossroads Pantomime & Others

This case of Slights & Others v Crossroads Pantomime & Others follow on from the case of Uber BV v Aslam, looking at worker status.

A leading finding by the Supreme Court in 2021, found Uber Drivers to be workers. A fundamental point in the Uber case was that the Supreme Court said that the contract was not the starting point. Rather than looking at the contract itself, the Supreme Court asked “are these the sort of people who deserve protection of the law and the protection of worker status?”. Therefore, they asked the question: is this the type of relationship parliament intended be covered by statutory employment protection?

A key fact of the Uber case was that the Uber drivers were subordinate and dependent on Uber.They were not able to substitute their services and send in another driver instead. Even thoughUber drivers have control over when they work and Uber does not dictate their times of work -

differentiating them from an employee - the obligation to work personally means that there is alevel of control by Uber.

In respect of control in this case, Judge Norris said:

‘…the Claimants do market themselves to the world in general via their Equity pages and their agents, up to a point; however I consider this akin to using any recruitment website such as Monster, Indeed or Hays, or engaging an Employment consultant or headhunter. They do this for the purposes of securing the role that, once engaged, the production company, whether the respondent or a film or a theatre group - chooses for them to do under the direction and control of the Respondent, and not to provide a performance, ready-made by them, to a venue as might be the case with a stand-up comedian or singer, for instance. They are not a ‘one-person-show’. Each of them performs within the projects of others and is integrated into each project because the underlying aim of the project is precisely to convey that they are part of the whole. They are part of a ‘cast’.