‘Legislation aimed at boosting seafarers’ pay has passed its final hurdle but may not immediately improve earnings.’
The Independent, 23rd March 2023
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘A law firm is seeking to launch a group action against Amazon over employee rights for delivery drivers.’
BBC News, 13th October 2021
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Pret, McColls and Welcome Break are among almost 200 firms “named and shamed” by the government for not paying workers the minimum wage.’
BBC News, 5th August 2021
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Establishing an individual’s employment rights can feel like a minefield, with varying degrees of obligations on the employer depending on the employment status. Earlier this year the Supreme Court upheld earlier decisions in the Employment Tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Appeal that Uber drivers are “workers” of Uber for the purposes of employment rights, and not, as Uber argued, self-employed contractors each operating their own minicab business.
Mills & Reeve, 14th June 2021
Source: www.mills-reeve.com
‘The Supreme Court decision in Royal Mencap Society v Tomlinson-Blake and Shannon v Rampersad & Another (T/A Clifton House Residential Home) [2021] UKSC 8 (“Mencap”) can only be described as a bitter blow to low paid, hard-working care workers who have been at the forefront of the most essential work during the ongoing global pandemic. In emotional terms it is hard to comprehend how such workers can feel anything other than betrayed and devalued as a result. The decision is, in the context of the great efforts by these workers, quite simply crushing. In legal terms, the decision also generates real concerns about the fragmentation of a basic minimum labour standard – the wage floor. One difficulty is the legal framework that workers have to rely on in relation to minimum wage protection in the UK. Further concerns also relate to the approach taken by the Supreme Court to the concept of time to be considered working (“work time”) in relation to the National Minimum Wage (“NMW”).’
UK Labour Law, 28th April 2021
Source: uklabourlawblog.com
‘Alasdair Henderson of 1 Crown Office Row joins Rosalind English to discuss the recent ruling by the UK Supreme Court that drivers whose work is arranged through Uber’s smartphone app work for Uber under workers’ contracts and so qualify for the protections afforded by employment law, such as minimum wage and paid holiday leave.’
Law Pod UK, 7th April 2021
Source: audioboom.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
‘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
‘If we had to pick one among the many enlightening statements from the UK Supreme Court’s judgment in Uber, it would be this. It perfectly captures both the gist of the case at hand and the substance of the whole global debate on platform work. From the outset, the narrative driven by platforms was based on the notion that they were something entirely new in our societies. They were introducing entirely novel work models, made possible by technology, which could not be subject to the same regulation that traditional businesses had to observe. Their business model was not compatible with existing labour protection systems, and they would be instead the best positioned to determine which kind of protection they could grant to workers (only – they would not call them “workers”, but “drivers”, “partners”, “taskers”, “riders”, etc.).’
UK Labour Law, 2nd March 2021
Source: uklabourlawblog.com
‘On 15 December 2020, the London South Employment Tribunal gave its judgment in a claim brought by a domestic worker, Ms Kamalammal P K Puthenveettil, challenging her exemption from payment of the national minimum wage on the basis of the “family worker” exemption. The Employment Tribunal (‘ET’) accepted the Claimant’s argument that this exemption, stemming from the “family worker” exemption, was unlawful and indirectly discriminatory on the basis of sex. This exemption has meant that some live-in domestic workers – part of an overwhelmingly female and largely ethnic minority and / or migrant workforce – have been at worst denied payment of the national minimum wage (‘NMW’), and in other cases lacked clarity about their entitlement to this very basic right. After outlining the background to Puthenveettil, this post will explain the family worker exemption and its (mis-)application to some live-in domestic workers. It will then analyse the judgment in Puthenveettil, its significance in questioning the devaluation of domestic work, and the limitations of the legal framework for domestic workers in the UK.’
UK Labour Law, 1st March 2021
Source: uklabourlawblog.com
‘In a landmark decision the Supreme Court has ruled that The Central London Employment Tribunal, and the Court of Appeal were correct to find that the Claimant Uber drivers were “workers”, rather than independent contractors. ‘Whether a contract is a ‘worker’s contract’ is a matter of statutory interpretation, not contractual interpretation. That involves taking a purposive approach which, in the employment context, is to protect those who are vulnerable as a result of their subordination to, and dependence upon, another person in relation to their work. In the case of Uber, the employment tribunal’s findings on the relative degree of control exercised by Uber and drivers respectively over the service provided to passengers justified its conclusion that the drivers were workers,’ according to the Supreme Court.’
Park Square Barristers, 24th February 2021
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘In a landmark judgment which will have wide-ranging implications for workers and employers in the gig economy, the Supreme Court has upheld an employment tribunal’s decision that Uber drivers were workers and therefore entitled to the minimum wage, statutory annual leave and protection from detriment under the Employment Rights Act 1996.’
Old Square Chambers, 19th February 2021
Source: oldsquare.co.uk
‘Uber has been accused of trying to deter drivers from seeking compensation for missed holiday and minimum wage payments after a landmark court ruling.’
The Guardian, 22nd February 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The employment tribunal has disapplied the “family worker” exemption, in effect holding that au pairs and other domestic workers who live in the home are entitled to the protections of the National Minimum Wage (“NMW”) regime. If this tribunal decision stands, it gives rise to another significant question: which hours should count towards the NMW for domestic workers?’
Littleton Chambers, 4th January 2021
Source: littletonchambers.com
‘Ruling says travel and waiting time between cases should be treated as working time.’
The Guardian, 15th September 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A few weeks before the lockdown, one of the most important UK labour law cases of the last decade was heard by the Supreme Court. Royal Mencap Society v Tomlinson Blake has not attracted the attention paid to the Uber litigation, also to reach the Supreme Court later this year. Yet Mencap will have significant ramifications for a segment of the British workforce at the front line of the coronavirus response, namely care workers.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 27th April 2020
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘In an important decision, the Court of Appeal in Bath Hill Court v Coletta has held that, in an unauthorised deduction of wages claim for non payment of the national minimum wage in the ET, there is no backstop on the recovery of deductions, enabling Mr Coletta to claim 15 years’ worth of losses.’
Old Square Chambers, 17th October 2019
Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk
‘A scheme for the naming of employers found to be in breach of the UK’s national minimum wage (NMW) has been suspended while the government reviews the scheme.’
OUT-LAW.com, 12th June 2019
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The judgment of the English Court of Appeal in Uber B.V. & others v Aslam & others (Case No: A2/2017/3467; 19 December 2018) has been hailed as a victory for workers. Uber’s business model, in common with many digital platforms, depends on classifying its drivers as independent contractors, who do not enjoy the rights of “employees” or “workers”. In essence, the majority of the Court endorsed the finding of the Employment Tribunal (ET) that these contractual provisions “do not correspond with the practical reality” and that the notion of Uber in London as “a mosaic of 30,000 small businesses linked by a common ‘platform’ is to our minds faintly ridiculous.”’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 14th January 2019
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘Uber has lost an appeal against a ruling that its drivers should be treated as workers rather than self-employed.’
BBC News, 19th December 2018
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2023