When volunteers and interns may acquire employment rights – OUT-LAW.com

Posted June 28th, 2021 in contract of employment, employment, equality, news, remuneration, volunteers by tracey

‘There is no legal definition of a “volunteer” or “intern” and no specific legislation covering employer-volunteer relationships. The extent of the rights that volunteers or interns may acquire is dependent on their legal status, meaning whether they are an “employee” or a “worker” or a genuine volunteer.’

Full Story

OUT-LAW.com, 25th June 2021

Source: www.pinsentmasons.com

Solicitor unfairly dismissed for refusing Covid variation to contract – Legal Futures

‘A solicitor fired after refusing a demand to vary her contract so her firm could furlough her or reduce her wages to help it cope with the impact of Covid has won a claim for unfair dismissal.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 15th April 2021

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

R.I.P Gig Economy? – 4 King’s Bench Walk

‘On February 19th, the Supreme Court dismissed Uber’s appeal upholding the decision of the Employment Tribunal: a ruling upheld both by the EAT and the Court of Appeal. Lord Leggatt’s judgment confirmed that the claimant Uber drivers were workers for the purposes of the Working Time Regulations, national minimum wage legislation, and the Employment Rights Act 1996. In a unanimous judgment, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the Employment Tribunal to determine the claims on their merits.’

Full Story

4 King's Bench Walk, 4th March 2021

Source: www.4kbw.co.uk

Asda staff win a major victory in their equal pay claim – Mills & Reeve

Posted April 8th, 2021 in contract of employment, equal pay, news, Supreme Court, women by sally

‘In a hotly anticipated decision at the Supreme Court last week, Asda supermarket staff won a major victory in their equal pay claim against Asda. Although the ruling does not mean the approximately 35,000 claimants have won the right to equal pay, the ruling does represent a big step forward and means their claim can continue.’

Full Story

Mills & Reeve, 6th April 2021

Source: www.mills-reeve.com

After Uber: Purposive Interpretation and the Future of Contract – by Joe Atkinson and Hitesh Dhorajiwala – UK Labour Law

Posted April 1st, 2021 in contract of employment, employment, interpretation, news, Supreme Court, taxis by tracey

‘The Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5 (“Uber (SC)”) judgment from the Supreme Court represents the final chapter in the long-running saga of determining the employment status of drivers who provided trips to passengers via the Uber app. As highlighted by Valerio De Stefano, the finding that the drivers must be classed as workers is part of a wider trend of decisions rejecting arguments that platform workers fall outside the regulatory scope of employment law. This blog considers key aspects of the Supreme Court’s reasoning, relating to the “purposive approach” and the role of contractual documentation in determining employment status, as well as some of the practical consequences of the judgment for workers.’

Full Story

UK Labour Law, 1st April 2021

Source: uklabourlawblog.com

Tribunal: Law firm’s part-time FD was worker, not self-employed – Legal Futures

‘An accountant who acted as a law firm’s part-time finance director through a company was a worker and not self-employed, even though he had another client, an employment tribunal has ruled.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 29th March 2021

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

‘A lot are sceptical’: Uber drivers’ cautious welcome over worker status – The Guardian

‘On Wednesday Uber, the taxi hailing app, began offering 70,000 UK drivers a minimum hourly wage, holiday pay and pensions after years of legal battles.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 18th March 2021

Source: www.theguardian.com

Courts close in on gig economy firms globally as workers seek rights – The Guardian

‘Gig economy companies, including Uber and Deliveroo, have faced at least 40 major legal challenges around the world as delivery drivers and riders try to improve their rights.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 17th March 2021

Source: www.theguardian.com

Splitting liability between transferees: McTear & Mitie v Amey & Others – Cloisters

‘In McTear & Mitie v Amey & Others the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the controversial decision of the CJEU in Govaerts applies in domestic law – including to Service Provision Changes (‘SPCs’) under TUPE. This means that the contract of employment of a given employee who transfers pursuant to a SPC may as a matter of law be split between multiple transferees.’

Full Story

Cloisters, 2nd March 2021

Source: www.cloisters.com

For Whom the Bell Tolls: “Contract” in the Gig Economy – Oxford Human Rights Hub

‘Are Uber drivers ‘limb (b) workers’ and so entitled to fundamental statutory rights such as the minimum wage and working time protections? In a decision of fundamental significance, six Justices of the United Kingdom Supreme Court (UKSC) upheld the original Employment Tribunal (ET) decision that the drivers were ‘limb (b) workers. In reaching this conclusion, the UKSC endorsed the ‘purposive’ approach that had been set down in the earlier case of Autoclenz v Belcher by Lord Clarke.’

Full Story

Oxford Human Rights Hub, 7th March 2021

Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk

“You have reached your destination…”; Uber v. Aslam – Parklane Plowden Chambers

‘On 19 February 2021 the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the long running dispute between Uber and its drivers.’

Full Story

Parklane Plowden Chambers, 26th February 2021

Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk

Late night coding: who owns the results? – Mills & Reeve

‘In a recent dispute over employees and copyright ownership – Penhallurick v MD5 Limited – ownership of copyright in software created out of hours and on a home computer was in question. Did the employee have the right to take it with him when he left or was it owned by his employer?’

Full Story

Mills & Reeve, 3rd March 2021

Source: www.mills-reeve.com

What Brexit means for employers and the right to work – EIN Blog

‘In simple terms, Brexit means that EU/EEA nationals are now treated the same way as non-EU/EEA nationals. This fact may, however, not be a lot of help to employers who have only ever recruited from the UK, EU and EEA. With that in mind, here is a quick guide to the new rules.’

Full Story

EIN Blog 22nd February 2021

Source: www.ein.org.uk

Actor loses tribunal claim over loss of Color Purple role after homophobic comments – The Guardian

‘An actor who sued a theatre and her former agents after she was sacked when a Facebook post resurfaced has had her claim for religious discrimination, harassment and breach of contract rejected at an employment tribunal.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 17th February 2021

Source: www.theguardian.com

Whistleblowing time limits: one off acts vs continuing acts – 3PB

Posted November 12th, 2020 in contract of employment, news, time limits, unfair dismissal, whistleblowers by sally

‘Ikejiaku reinforces the distinction between a one-off act and a continuing act in the context of the imposition of a new contract, highlighting that this was a one off act with continuing consequences. Although the case concerned time limits in a whistleblowing detriment claim, the principles will extend across other areas, such as discrimination, in which unlawful detriments form the basis for claims.’

Full Story

3PB, 8th October, 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Furlough and administration: when is a contract of employment ‘adopted’? – Exchange Chambers

‘The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (the scheme) has been ground breaking for employers, employees and administrators of insolvent companies, each of whom have swiftly adjusted to the practical and commercial effects of the scheme. The scheme very quickly gave rise to applications to the High Court, by administrators of high-profile companies, for directions as to whether a contract of employment of a “furloughed employee” had been “adopted” by an administrator. If it was, the “wages or salary” (which are defined by paragraph 99(6) of schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act) to include holiday pay and sick pay) would have super-priority over (a) the administrators’ remuneration and (b) a floating charge, under paragraph 99(3) and (4) of schedule B1 of the Act.’

Full Story

Exchange Chambers, 13th October 2020

Source: www.exchangechambers.co.uk

Tribunal awards 10 UK homecare workers £10,000 each in back pay – The Guardian

‘Ruling says travel and waiting time between cases should be treated as working time.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 15th September 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

Re Debenhams Retail: do the wages of furloughed employees enjoy super priority in an insolvency? – Hardwicke Chambers

‘The Appellants were the Joint Administrators of Debenhams Retail Ltd (“the Company”), which had entered into administration on 9 April 2020. This had followed decisions in late March to place some 14,000 of its employees on furlough under the Government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (“the Scheme”).’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 11th August 2020

Source: hardwicke.co.uk

Worker Status Sent Spinning: Case summary of Varnish v British Cycling – 3PB

‘Ms Varnish (the Claimant) is a talented cyclist. She holds world records for track cycling and has won medals at the European Championships, World Cup and Commonwealth Games. She entered into an “Athlete Agreements” with British Cycling (the Respondent). This agreement expressly stated that it was not a contract of employment, that the Respondent would develop an Individual Rider Plan and provide the Claimant with support required, and that the Claimant would, among other things, train to the best of her abilities. The agreement provided for suspension and termination by the Respondent in certain circumstances.’

Full Story

3PB, 3rd August 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Uber BV v Aslam – Old Square Chambers

‘In this case the drivers argue Uber is a transportation company for whom they provide services as “workers”. Uber disagrees, arguing it is a technology services provider acting as an agent for drivers in their business relationship with passengers. The question for the Court is whether the drivers are “workers” for the purposes of s.230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, s.54(3)(b) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and reg.2(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. If this threshold is passed, a further issue is when the drivers are workers. Possible options include: (1) from the collection of the passenger until the driver reaches the passenger’s destination, (2) from the moment a booking is accepted until the passenger is dropped off, (3) any time when the driver is in the relevant territory with the Uber app switched on. This case is important as it provides an opportunity for the Supreme Court to provide guidance on the interpretation of Autoclenz v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41 and the correct approach to when it is permissible to disregard written contractual terms in an employment context.’

Full Story

Old Square Chambers, 21st July 2020

Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk