‘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.’
The Guardian, 17th March 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘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.’
Cloisters, 2nd March 2021
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘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.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 7th March 2021
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘On 19 February 2021 the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the long running dispute between Uber and its drivers.’
Parklane Plowden Chambers, 26th February 2021
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘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?’
Mills & Reeve, 3rd March 2021
Source: www.mills-reeve.com
‘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.’
EIN Blog 22nd February 2021
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘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.’
The Guardian, 17th February 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘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.’
3PB, 8th October, 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘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.’
Exchange Chambers, 13th October 2020
Source: www.exchangechambers.co.uk
‘Ruling says travel and waiting time between cases should be treated as working time.’
The Guardian, 15th September 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘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”).’
Hardwicke Chambers, 11th August 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘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.’
3PB, 3rd August 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘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.’
Old Square Chambers, 21st July 2020
Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk
‘Across the board people have been reassessing how the traditional views of what it means to be an “employee” fit within our modern world.’
Littleton Chambers, 21st July 2020
Source: littletonchambers.com
‘It is not just in the worlds of finance and commerce where the effects of the global Corona Virus pandemic are currently being felt. The sporting world is also suffering at the hands of this novel virus. And many clubs are doing anything to make savings. But will that be enough? As has been publicised this weekend, Wigan Athletic Football Club have called in the administrators as a result of their financial woes. Seven years after winning the FA Cup, their fall from those dizzy heights has reached a new low.’
Church Court Chambers, July 2020
Source: churchcourtchambers.co.uk
‘In the coming days, labour lawyers from around the world will be tuning in to watch the arguments in Uber v Aslam. In terms of the wider ramifications of the reasoning in Heller, what are the prospects for the ‘contractual’ and the “constitutional” approaches in Aslam? As already noted, the wider doctrine of unconscionability in Heller is unlikely to find favour in the English courts. More importantly, disputes about the employment contract in English courts are rarely about the contract rights themselves. The (private) contract is a gateway into a suite of (public) statutory employment protections. It would make little sense for a worker to seek to set aside the contract by using unconscionability as a vitiating factor, when the statutory protections depend upon the contract being valid and enforceable. This limits the practical relevance of Heller’s expanded unconscionability doctrine, given the statutory context to most employment litigation in the UK.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 20th July 2020
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘Across the world, Gig employers are now facing a legal reckoning in the highest courts. On 21st July, the issue of whether Uber drivers are “workers” will be considered by a seven-member panel of the UK Supreme Court. This follows on from Mr Heller’s momentous victory in a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller which involved a legal challenge to a mandatory arbitration clause in a contract between Uber and an UberEATS driver. The arbitration clause required disputes to be referred to arbitration in Amsterdam, which would be subject to the law of the Netherlands. The clause also required the payment of US $14,500 as an upfront administrative cost. The appellant earned $20,800–$31,200 per year before taxes and expenses were deducted. Nor did the fee include other costs likely to be incurred in an arbitration, such as travel to Amsterdam, accommodation, and legal representation. Students of transnational labour law of a certain generation cut their teeth on great debates about “offshoring” and the disintegrative risks to labour standards posed by capital mobility. The Heller case is an important reminder that we are now in an era of juridical mobility: employing entities seek to escape national labour law systems without the cost and inconvenience of spatial mobility.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 19th July 2020
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘In relation to the EFL, there have been dire warnings that in the absence of a substantially increased contribution from the Premier League, up to 60 clubs could go out of business.’
Littleton Chambers, 2nd June 2020
Source: littletonchambers.com
‘In the recent case of Trailfinders v Travel Counsellors & Ors [2020] EWHC 591 (IPEC) the court reiterated that the test was not subjective: the recipient of the client list did not have to know the information was confidential. It was objective: in equity the recipient is under a duty of confidence whenever he ought to know that the information received is fairly and reasonably to be regarded as confidential, irrespective of his actual state of mind. Further, this was now also the statutory position because under Art. 4 (4) of Directive (EU) 2016/943 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition: “The acquisition, use or disclosure of a trade secret shall also be considered unlawful whenever a person, at the time of the acquisition, use or disclosure, knew or ought, under the circumstances, to have known that the trade secret had been obtained directly or indirectly from another person who was using or disclosing the trade secret unlawfully within the meaning of paragraph 3.”’
Employment Blog, 9th June 2020
Source: employment11kbw.com
‘The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) recently held in Revenue and Customs v Professional Game Match Officials Ltd that part-time football referees are independent contractors (rather than employees, whose match fees and other payments are subject to PAYE).’
Old Square Chambers, 1st June 2020
Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024