The outcome of the case means that the tens of thousands of drivers who work for the ride hailing app firm will be entitled to receive the relevant National Living Wage (NLW) / National Minimum Wage (NMW) rates and will also be eligible for holiday pay. Additionally, Uber drivers should be deemed as working, not only when completing trips with a passenger / passengers, but actually whenever they are logged in to the app – this includes the periods of time in which drivers are waiting for people to book taxis through the app. The legal battle has been rumbling on for some time, and dates back to as far as October 2016, when Uber drivers James Farrar and Yaseen Aslam originally won an employment tribunal against the company. Uber appealed against this ruling, but the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the decision, in November 2017. Uber then took the case to the High Court, in December 2018, but the ruling was once again upheld. Uber then appealed to the Supreme Court, following its previous three losses, and on Friday 19 February 2021, Lord Leggatt confirmed that the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed that appeal.
In arriving at the decision, several elements were considered, as follows:
• Uber set the fares, essentially meaning that they dictated how much drivers earned • Uber set the contract terms, and drivers had no input or say on them • Uber had the power to penalise drivers who it felt were rejecting too many rides • Star ratings were provided to Uber drivers, which Uber monitored- Uber had the ability to terminate the relationship with drivers if, after repeated warnings, there was no improvement
These, amongst other various factors, led the court to assert that Uber must classify its drivers as workers, and not self-employed individuals.
Back to Contents
The Supreme Court rules that sleep-in care workers are not entitled to the minimum wage 22 March 2021 In a landmark case, held on 19 March 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that care workers who fulfil ‘sleep-in’ shifts are not entitled to be paid the National Minimum Wage (NMW) for any hours that they are not awake and not actually performing a specific activity. The latest ruling puts an end to a legal battle that has spanned four years and related to two care workers employed by the charity, Mencap. One of the claimants in question was Mrs. Tomlinson-Blake, who was a support worker for adults that were classed as being vulnerable. Her job involved carrying out ‘sleep-in’ shifts between the hours of 10pm – 7 am. The other claimant was Mr. Shannon, a carer, who, as part of his role, had to stay overnight at a residential care home based in Surrey. Cases held back in 2018, which were both dismissed by the Employment Tribunal and Court of Appeal, saw Mrs. Tomlinson-Blake assert that her flat-rate pay, plus an hour’s pay, for ‘sleep-in shifts’ should instead be paid at standard NMW rates. Mr. Shannon also fought for an hourly pay rate as opposed to a flat rate of pay for the duration of time in which he was required to complete ‘sleep-in’ shifts.
The stance taken by the Supreme Court is that care workers are only eligible for the NMW hourly rate on ‘sleep-in’ shifts, for any time that they are actually awake for the purposes of working.
One of the implications of the judgement is that neither Mrs. Tomlinson-Blake or Mr. Shannon are able to submit claims for any backdated pay. If the outcome of the case had been different, and payment of the NMW would have been made mandatory for all hours spent on ‘sleep-in’ shifts, then this could have resulted in impacted employers having to pay out more than £400 million in back-dated wages.
Back to Contents
Ethnicity Pay Gap
The Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals
Payroll: need to know
cipp.org.uk
Page 279 of 590
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker