Policy News Journal - 2016-17

The Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals ……………………………………………………………Policy News Journal

given to whether there are any legitimate reasons for the differences, such as different market rates in different industry sectors.

With thanks to Pinsent Masons for providing this summary.

Back to Contents

Drivers win employment status case 1 November 2016

An Employment Tribunal has ruled that two drivers who provide services to gig economy stalwart Uber are 'workers' within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

This means they will be entitled to a limited number of employment rights (but not those accruing to 'employees' - which this case was not about). Amongst other rights, they will be entitled to:

5.6 weeks' paid annual leave each year

 a maximum 48 hour average working week, and rest breaks  the national minimum wage (and the national living wage)  protection of the whistleblowing legislation.

As they are not employees, they will not be entitled to:

 

the ability to claim unfair dismissal

the right to a statutory redundancy payment

 the benefit of the implied term of trust and confidence  the protection of TUPE, if Uber sells its business

Of course, it is virtually certain that this tribunal decision will be appealed up and up, potentially to the Supreme Court. So, for now:

1. any Uber drivers should bring tribunal claims on the assumption they are 'workers', and ask for the hearings to be stayed (put on hold) pending any appeals of today's decision 2. although this decision is fact-specific, and based on Uber's business model, it increases the chance of other 'gig economy' companies facing claims that their 'contractors' have worker status.

The transcript is available here .

With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin which provided the details of this case.

Back to Contents

Employment Status - Judicial Office Holders 4 November 2016

Are judicial office holders employed under a contract?

No, held the EAT in Gilham v Ministry of Justice .

Whilst judges are undoubtedly office holders, the question for the EAT here was whether a district judge was also employed under a contract and was therefore entitled to protection from whistleblowing detriments and dismissal.

Although the Supreme Court held in Ministry of Justice v O'Brien (March 2012) that Recorders are 'workers' (which would ordinarily imply the existence of a contract), that decision was expressly not arrived at on the basis that part-time judges have contracts. Rather Recorders are in an 'employment relationship'• within the particular meaning of the framework agreement on part-time work.


Page 98

of 588

Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker