According to reports, Mr Jarvis reported the firm to HM Revenue and Customs and sued for the unpaid wages. Yesterday, it was claimed that a few weeks before a scheduled Tribunal, the case was settled out of Court and Sony paid Mr Jarvis £4,600. It was revealed that Sony argued that Mr Jarvis was a volunteer so did not need to be paid, but Jasmie Patel, Specialist Employment solicitor at Leigh Day, who helped Mr Jarvis with his case, said: “If someone is working set hours and is adding value to the company so that if they were not doing the task someone else would have to be paid to do it, then it is more likely they will be defined as a worker in law, entitled to be paid. “Voluntary workers can only be employed unpaid by a charity, a voluntary organisation, an associated fund-raising body or a statutory body. You can be a volunteer worker at a commercial company, but you still qualify for the minimum wage."
“On a legal level, under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, interns who meet the definition of a “worker” are entitled to be paid at least the national minimum wage.
“A key question when determining whether someone is a worker is whether the intern is obliged to perform work or services for the company and whether the organisation is obliged to provide it – i.e. a mutually of obligations.
“If the intern is doing work which is of value to the company this may also be a good indication that the intern is actually a worker and should be paid.”
“These cases are very case specific but where there is a mutuality of obligations, someone is really providing value to the company and the internship is for quite a long period - say six months - there will probably be a higher chance that they will be a worker and therefore should be being paid.”
According to Government regulations, employers do not have to pay the minimum wage if an internship only involves observing an employee and no work is carried out by the intern.
TUPE: Service Provision Changeover
13 September 2013
Can a single employee be an 'organised grouping'• whose 'principal purpose'• is the activity to transfer under a TUPE service provision changeover?
Yes, holds the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in Rynda v Rhijnsburger .
Following the government's recent decision not to remove the service provision change provisions, this case provides clarity.
Daniel Barnett's employment law bulletin has published the details.
The issue before the employment tribunal had been whether the Claimant had sufficient continuity of service to claim unfair dismissal. That depended upon her establishing an earlier TUPE transfer. Finding for the Claimant, the tribunal decided that the conditions in regulation 3 of TUPE 2006 had been satisfied and the EAT agreed. Following a series of transfers, the Claimant's employment transferred to Rynda. Considering regulation 3, the tribunal held that the Claimant had been assigned to an organised grouping of employees (albeit that she was the sole employee in that grouping), that her 'principal purpose'• was to carry out the activities to be transferred 'immediately before the transfer'• and that it was not a temporary arrangement. Citing
CIPP Policy News Journal
16/04/2014, Page 112 of 519
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker