The Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals ……………………………………………………………Policy News Journal
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin which provided the details of this case.
Back to Contents
Tribunal rules CitySprint courier is entitled to workers’ rights 11 January 2017
The London Central Employment Tribunal has ruled that a bicycle courier for logistics organisation CitySprint is a worker, and is therefore entitled to benefits such as holiday pay.
In the case of Dewhurst v CitySprint UK , Dewhurst contended that she was employed as a worker rather than an independent contractor, and was therefore entitled to worker rights, such as holiday pay. Dewhurst, who has been accepting work from CitySprint UK for the past two years, was seeking payment for two days’ holiday she had taken. Dewhurst’s claim was supported by the Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain (IWGB) and was heard at the London Central Employment Tribunal in November 2016. The Employment Tribunal’s decision, which was released on Friday 6 January 2017, found that the claimant Dewhurst was a worker during the hours that she provided services for CitySprint, and that CitySprint had unlawfully failed to pay her for two days’ holiday. Employment judge Wade found that CitySprint regulated the amount of work available to couriers, and from the time that Dewhurst signed on to the courier circuit in the morning until she signed off at night, she was not and could not meaningfully provide services to anyone else.
Read more about the case from Employee Benefits .
Back to Contents
COT3 Agreements 16 January 2017
Was an unclear COT3 wording sufficient to settle all disability claims?
No, held the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in DWP v Brindley , dismissing an appeal against a finding that a COT3 did not settle a subsequent claim.
Acas settlements are legally-binding contracts between the parties to settle actual or potential complaints to the Employment Tribunal. They are recorded on Acas form COT3.
The Claimant brought two claims for disability discrimination, the first in 2014 relating to a final written warning for absence. That claim was settled on 11December 2014 via a COT3. The COT3 wording covered all claims in that case and "all other Relevant Claims arising from the facts of the Proceedings up to and including the date (of) this Agreement". Before the COT3 was agreed, in November 2014, the Claimant received a second final written warning for a different period of absence, unsuccessfully appealing in January 2015. Next June, the Claimant brought a new claim over the second warning. The Respondent sought to have that claim struck out as settled by the COT3. The employment tribunal held correctly that the COT3 did not cover claims arising from the new circumstances in the second claim. The wording 'the facts of the Proceedings' only covered the specific matters that led to the first warning, not any action by the Respondent up to the date of the COT3.
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin for providing this update.
Back to Contents
cipp.org.uk
Page 101
of 588
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker