‘The Honourable Mrs Justice Ellenbogen, sitting in the EAT, held that a tribunal had erred in extending time under s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 (“EqA 2010”), by failing to determine whether a claimant’s ignorance of his right to claim direct race discrimination was reasonable.’
3PB, 2nd March 2021
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘This Equal Pay claim has been ongoing for some time already (since 2016) and is set to continue for some time yet. In short, the Supreme Court’s Judgment handed down 3 days ago (26th March 2021) is focused upon a narrow point, which whilst of importance and interest to both parties and their advisors, in no sense has brought closure to these proceedings which are likely to continue to attract media attention as the layers of equal value litigation unfold.’
3PB, 29th March 2021
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘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.’
4 King's Bench Walk, 4th March 2021
Source: www.4kbw.co.uk
‘R indicated that it wanted to arrange a Christmas dinner, and proposed a date for it. No objections were raised. Hotels and planes were consequently booked. Thereafter C (and a co-worker) indicated that the planned date did not suit them. R considered the matter but declined to change the date, various arrangements having already been made.’
3PB, 2nd March 2021
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘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.’
UK Labour Law, 1st April 2021
Source: uklabourlawblog.com
‘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.’
Legal Futures, 29th March 2021
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The industrial action that led to the convictions of union activists and a 47-year campaign to clear their names took place as Edward Heath’s Conservative government sought to weaken the economic power of trade unions.’
The Guardian, 23rd March 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Court of appeal judges have overturned the criminal convictions of a group of trade unionists, including the actor Ricky Tomlinson, after a campaign lasting more than four decades.’
The Guardian, 23rd March 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Care workers who “sleep-in” are not entitled to the national minimum wage when they are in bed, the Supreme Court has ruled.’
Law Society's Gazette, 19th March 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The investigator helping coordinate the official inquiry into the Metropolitan police’s handling of the Sarah Everard vigil and concerns over women’s safety is suing the Home Office for sex discrimination over claims that he has been penalised for being a “white man”, the Observer can reveal.’
The Guardian, 21st March 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘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.’
The Guardian, 18th March 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘An employer’s compulsory retirement scheme requires the dismissal of an employee for no other reason than the employee has attained a specified retirement age. The retirement age may be fixed in the terms of the contract of employment, a staff handbook, a collective agreement, or other regulations that determine the rules governing a particular retirement age. Although compulsory retirement used to be lawful, since 2011 the position in the United Kingdom (UK) is that an employee dismissed in accordance with an employer’s policy of a compulsory retirement age can bring a claim either for unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996 or (for workers as well as employees) for age discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. Following Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes [2012] UKSC 16, an employer can justify the age discrimination of a compulsory retirement age as a proportionate measure in pursuit of a legitimate aim, such as preserving the promotion prospects of younger staff or the avoidance of intrusive surveillance of the job performance of older staff.’
UK Labour Law Blog, 17th March 2021
Source: uklabourlawblog.com
‘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
‘Multiple claims in the employment tribunal nearly doubled towards the end of 2020 as the effects of the pandemic took effect. Statistics published this week by the Ministry of Justice show 29,000 claims were made by more than one person based on the same set of facts in the final three months of last year. This is 82% up on the same period in 2019.’
Law Society's Gazette, 12th March 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘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
‘Women are almost twice as likely as men to have their criminal records disclosed when applying for a job, and to suffer “sustained stigma” from employers, a new study has found.’
The Independent, 8th March 2021
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘A magistrate and NHS trust board member who was dismissed over his views – based on his beliefs as a Christian – about the appropriateness of the adoption of a child by a same-sex couple, has lost two cases in the Court of Appeal.’
Local Government Lawyer, 4th March 2021
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The government has asked the Low Pay Commission to review a rule exempting live-in domestic workers from minimum wage regulations. It comes after an employment tribunal in December found that the exemption was discriminatory against women. The tribunal heard extensive evidence that women are far more likely to be employed as family workers than men.’
The Guardian, 7th March 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘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
© Inner Temple Library 2025