You can read the full judgment of the Court here (the only authoritative document).
Back to Contents
GMB scores landmark win against Hermes 28 June 2018
Leeds Employment Tribunal has found that a group of Hermes couriers were workers and were entitled to employment rights and to receive the national minimum wage and holiday pay.
The case, which was heard by the Leeds Employment Tribunal in April and May 2018, was brought by trade union GMB on behalf of 65 couriers, although the decision is predicted to impact on Hermes’ wider network of 14,500 couriers who are engaged under the same contract.
There will now be a further hearing in the Employment Tribunal to calculate the holiday pay, national minimum wage and any unlawful deductions due back that the couriers should receive.
Tim Roache, GMB general secretary, said: “This is yet another ruling that shows the gig economy for what it is, old- fashioned exploitation under a shiny new facade. Bosses can’t just pick and choose which laws to obey. ’Workers’ right were hard won, and the GMB isn’t about to sit back and let them be eroded or removed by the latest loophole employers have come up with to make a few extra quid.” Tim Roache also goes onto say “Not only will this judgement directly affect more than 14,000 Hermes couriers across the country, it’s another nail in the coffin of the exploitative bogus self-employment model which is increasingly rife across the UK. We urge Hermes to sit down with us and have a meaningful discussion.”
The full press release is available from GMB.
Back to Contents
Right to work in the UK 05 July 2018
Is it fair to refuse to give a right of appeal against dismissal, where the employer has reasonably (but mistakenly) reached the conclusion that an employee has no right to work in the UK?
Almost never, held the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in Afzal v East London Pizza Ltd t/a Dominos Pizza
The Claimant had the right to work in the UK but had failed to produce evidence before the end of his limited leave to remain (which gave him the right to work) in August 2016. On the day that his leave would have expired, Mr Afzal sent an email to his employer with evidence of his application to the Home Office. That application automatically extended his right to work. The attachments with the evidence could not be opened and the Respondent was dismissed to avoid civil and criminal penalties under the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. In the dismissal letter, East London Pizza failed to offer the right to an appeal. They also argued in the tribunal that there was "nothing to appeal against": new evidence would not have undermined the reasonableness of the Respondent's belief at the time of dismissal. The EAT rejected that argument, holding that the whole of the process, including an appeal, was relevant to the question of fairness. He decided that production of the evidence of right to work "could have happened during an appeal process in various ways" and the contract could have been revived "without fear of prosecution or penalty".
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s Employment Law Bulletin for its coverage of this case.
Back to Contents
The Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals
Payroll: need to know
cipp.org.uk
Page 98 of 598
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker