‘The government has asked tax inspectors to consider investigating allegations of low pay by self-employed couriers working for the doorstep delivery company Hermes.’
The Guardian, 11th September 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘More than two-thirds of zero-hours workers aged over 25 have been with the same employer for more than a year, highlighting concerns that the insecure arrangements have become a permanent feature of working life for thousands of people.’
The Guardian, 8th September 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Last week Byron, the upmarket burger chain called their employees into a meeting, which was cast as a meeting to teach them how to cook burgers. Immigration officers turned up to this (allegedly) stooge meeting (the employees were not there to learn how to cook burgers, but apparently to be investigated by the Immigration Service). Immigration detained and removed a number of employees – whom it turns out had been working on illegal passports and visas. It was reported that some of the employees were deported from the UK that evening, without the opportunity to say their goodbyes to family or colleagues.’
Cloisters, 17th August 2016
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘Deliveroo has outsmarted Uber by reportedly building clauses into the contracts of its couriers to prevent them from taking the company to court over worker’s rights.’
The Independent, 25th July 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Uber is facing a legal challenge from drivers who say that they should be recognised officially as workers at the company, as calls grow for new rights for the UK’s burgeoning army of self-employed individuals.’
The Guardian, 19th July 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Cavanagh and others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] EWHC 1136 (QB)
The first and second claimant employees were, it was assumed for present purposes, employed by the defendant employer under civil service terms and conditions and various collective agreements. Under “check-off arrangements” in the employer’s deductions from pay policy, the employees had opted for their subscriptions to the third claimant trade union to be paid by deduction from their salary and paid by the employer to the union. Latterly the check-off arrangements had been included in the employer’s salary policy published on the staff intranet. When the employer ended the check-off arrangements, the claimants brought a claim against it, contending that the employees had a contractual right to insist that the employer continue with the arrangement enforceable by the trade union under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.
WLR Daily, 13th May 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Can a senior employee be ordered to pay back his past contractual remuneration to his employer as a remedy for breach of fiduciary duty, in particular a duty to confess his own wrongdoing? There has been an increasing trend over the past few years for employers, outraged at the belatedly discovered wrongdoing of a trusted senior employee, to not only seek to justify summary dismissal on the basis of after-discovered gross misconduct but also to go a step further and try to recover the salaries or bonuses already paid to the employee prior to discovery of the misconduct.’
Sports Law Bulletin, 7th June 2016
Source: www.sportslawbulletin.org
‘Carol Davis comments on the BIS plans to call for evidence on potentially stifling employment rules and considers a world without non-compete clauses.’
Littleton Chambers, 23rd March 2016
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling on childcare vouchers is at odds with the approach taken by most employers.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 9th May 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The new contract ministers plan to force on NHS junior doctors discriminates against female medics and is potentially illegal, Britain’s equality watchdog has told the government.’
The Guardian, 28th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A recent decision by the Court of Appeal provides a “helpful summary” of the circumstances in which employment terms set out in separate documents should be considered incorporated into employee’s contracts, according to an employment law expert.’
OUT-LAW.com, 26th Aoril 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
Sparks and others v Department for Transport [2016] EWCA Civ 360
‘A provision in the employer’s staff handbook stated that where in any 12 month period the employee had taken a number of short term absences which together exceeded 21 working days, the employee’s line manager would discuss his attendance record with him, and only if those “trigger points” had been exceeded and the line manager had consequently acknowledged that there was a problem with the employee’s attendance would the line manager take the matter forward in accordance with the relevant attendance procedures. The handbook provided that all it provisions which applied to the particular employee and were apt for incorporation should be incorporated into the employee’s contract of employment. The provision in question was in a part of the handbook on ill health, which contained the following introductory words: “This chapter sets out your terms and conditions of employment relating to sick leave … [and] the management of poor attendance….” Seven employees, all of whom were employed by different agencies within the same government department and were subject to somewhat different but materially similar provisions, brought claims contending that those provisions were terms of the contracts of employment between them and their employer. The employer maintained that the provisions were not legally enforceable contractual terms but mere notes of guidance or good practice of no legal force. The provision in respect of cumulative short-term absences in the first employee’s documents was taken to determine the question between the employer and all the employees. The judge held that the provisions were terms of the employees’ contracts of employment, and made declarations to that effect. As a result the judge declared that a new policy of attendance management introduced by the employer in July 2012 had not been effective to vary the contractual terms of the employment contracts and was not contractually binding on the employees.’
WLR Daily, 14th April 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Such issues were central in Vestergaard A/S v Bestnet Europe Limited [2013] UKSC 31 (V v B). Shortly afterwards the Patents County Court (two months before it became the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court) had to decide in Pintorex Limited v Parax Limited [2013] EWPCC 36 (P v P), theliability of a sole director and sole shareholder of a company, by the application of the guidelines in Vestergaard. The Judge in P v P was Mr Recorder Alastair Wilson QC, who represented the successful respondents in V v B.’
New Square Chambers, 30th September 2015
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
‘In certain occupations, it is common for the employment contract to require the employee to sleep overnight at the place of employment some or all nights of the week and to be “on call” should any incidents arise. Typically those occupations attract low wages and include care workers, supervisors at boarding schools and porters in residential blocks of flats. If the employee is entitled to be paid for all the hours whilst they are present at the workplace, even when they are asleep, and not just those hours when they are attending incidents, then their average wage may fall below the National Minimum Wage [“NMW”]. What, then, is the test to be applied to whether hours spent asleep are to be taken into account?’
No. 5 Chambers, 30th September 2015
Source: www.no5.com
‘FOCUS The EU’s highest court has ruled that the time those with no fixed place of work spend travelling between home and their first and last places of work each day counts as “woking time” – but this does not necessarily entitle them to extra pay.’
OUT-LAW.com, 11th September 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘In granting the anti-suit injunction against EMC Corporation in Petter v (1) EMC Europe Limited (2) EMC Corporation [2015] EWCA Civ 828, the CA considered that it was upholding the policy in section 5 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 for the protection of employees from being sued other than in the courts of their domicile. But was it exceeding the limits of its jurisdiction to regulate the lawful conduct of foreigners, and interfering in the process of justice in the court of a friendly foreign state?’
Employment Law Blog, 13th August 2015
Source: www.employment11kbw.com
‘Employers may be entitled to deduct a day’s pay for strike action at the rate of 1/260th of the striking worker’s salary depending on contractual terms, the Court of Appeal has confirmed.’
Out-Law.com, 28th May 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Legislation that the prime minister, David Cameron, boasted will protect workers on zero-hours contracts has been described as toothless by employment lawyers.’
The Guardian, 26th May 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Hartley and others v King Edward VI College [2015] EWCA Civ 455; [2015] WLR (D) 216
‘Section 2 of the Apportionment Act 1870 applied to teachers’ contracts of employment, requiring that apportionment of pay be considered as accruing from day to day; but it was an error to construe the provision as though it also contained a principle of equal daily accrual.’
WLR Daily, 14th May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024