Submissions

Equity response to the DTI consultation document on Employment Status in relation to Statutory Employment Rights

January 2003

  1. Equity as the union representing a variety of professional performers and creative personnel, has a strong interest in the proposals outlined in the above consultation. While the vast majority of our membership has some access to a minority of employment rights, there is a notable inequality of rights application that we hope this consultation will rectify.
  2. We have seen and support the consultation response submitted by the TUC. We note their concern about conducting a general tax and National Insurance review, and agree that this should be avoided. The majority of Equity members' experience a unique situation where they are considered employed for National Insurance and self employed for tax; a situation the Paymaster General is currently taking steps to ensure continues. We would therefore certainly not wish to revisit this matter.
  3. Additionally we wish to note, as the DTI is aware through its consultations on the Employment Agencies regulations, Equity members who have agents or personal managers, have a different employment relationship then those using employment agents to find temporary or part-time work. The TUC's response therefore does not reflect the situation for Equity members. We do, however, agree that the Government should not delay extending rights to agency workers until they are required to do so under EU law.
  4. As a whole, we welcome the Government's decision to conduct a review of employment status. Equity would argue that the United Kingdom needs a clear and uniform application of employment protective legislation, without which, doubt and inconsistency will continue. We believe that all workers should be entitled to the full range of employment rights that are available and agree with the TUC that these rights should always be applied, and that workers should not be able to contract out of them. The lack of a consistent approach to employment status is in itself problematic for workers and the courts, which too often are required to adjudicate on such matters.
  5. The consultation paper concentrates on whether to extend the coverage of current employment rights to those workers not currently caught within the legal remits, while not concerned with creating new rights or amending (or deleting) existing ones. Before addressing this point specifically, it is worth outlining the unique nature of the entertainment industry. Owing to the peculiar employment environment, Equity members will often work for more than one employer during a specified timeframe. Additionally, performers may well work across theatre, television or variety, depending on their skills. Unless working on a major film production, or as a regular in a television programme or stage production, performers can work a series of individual engagements on a variety of different media, over a relatively short time frame. While the vast majority of these performers will be considered workers, and therefore eligible to most of the employment protection rights, the nature of the industry tends to prohibit an individual ever being eligible for redundancy and unfair dismissal rights, or family friendly employment rights.
  6. We consider this inconsistency unacceptable and would wish to see an extension of these rights to all workers. The entertainment sector is incredibly volatile, and our members may go for long periods without work. It is therefore even more important that while in work, they are fully able to take advantage of the complete range of employment rights.
  7. One area of our membership that is particularly disadvantaged are our singer members. Singers are paid per session and not per day, as are most musicians. This approach means that they are excluded from employment rights because they are not defined as workers. Equity would therefore wish to see this situation rectified. We would argue that they should be considered workers in their own right, and as such qualify for the protection that is so far lacking.
  8. In view of our particular concerns, Equity supports the TUC's request for a single definition of 'worker'. A single definition would provide clarity and remove confusion. If the definition incorporated the key principles outlined in the conclusion of the TUC's submission, we believe it would address our concerns and those of many others in the sector.

For further information contact Kelly Wiffen, Research and Parliamentary Officer on kwiffen@equity.org.uk

Site Navigation: