tribunal found that the transfer amounted to a detriment for asserting their working time rights, contrary to sections 45A and 48 of the Employment Rights Act (ERA). It awarded injury to feelings for the claims but the fire service appealed.
The fire service argued that no injury to feelings should be awarded while the Claimants relied on other detriment cases to argue that it should. The EAT held that because the remedy is set by s 49 of the ERA, the same section as for other detriment cases, injury to feelings is potentially available. Whether it is appropriate to make an award in a particular case is a question of fact.
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin for providing this case summary.
Back to Contents
Tesco faces Britain's largest ever equal pay claim 12 February 2018
Thousands of women who work in Tesco stores could receive back pay totalling £20,000 if the legal challenge demanding parity with men who work in the company's warehouses is successful.
According to a BBC News report Tesco is facing Britain's largest ever equal pay claim and a possible bill running to £4bn. Reportedly lawyers say hourly-paid female store staff earn less than men even though the value of the work is comparable. Paula Lee, of Leigh Day solicitors told the BBC it was time for Tesco to tackle the problem of equal pay for work of equal worth. Her firm has apparently been contacted by more than 1,000 Tesco staff and will shortly take the initial legal steps for 100 of them. The most common rate for women is £8 an hour whereas for men the hourly rate can be as high as £11 an hour, she added.
Tesco said it worked hard to ensure all staff were paid "fairly and equally".
Read more from BBC News .
Back to Contents
Worker wins 'groundbreaking' victory in payroll case 19 February 2018
Unite, the UK’s largest union, has won a potentially groundbreaking legal victory at the employment appeal tribunal (EAT) in the battle against bogus self-employment and the use of payroll companies.
The case was for the unlawful deduction of wages and employer’s national insurance contributions as well as the non- payment of holiday pay. This is the first time that the EAT has considered a bogus self-employment appeal involving the use of a payroll company. From 19 January 2016 until 20 May 2016 Mr Blakely was employed on the NHS funded Broadmoor hospital redevelopment project in Berkshire by On-Site. Confirming he was to undertake work on the project On-Site texted Mr Blakely and informed him that he needed to contact an umbrella/payroll company, Heritage Solutions City Limited for payment. Mr Blakely was paid weekly and was deducted a weekly fee of £18 by Heritage from his pay (described as management company margin). He was also charged the employer’s national insurance contributions, labelled on his payslip as ‘HMRC Payment NIERS’. In total he was charged £324 in management fees and £725.59 in employer NICs.
In March 2016, Heritage Solutions asked Mr Blakely to sign ‘a contract for services’ seeking to deny him the most basic worker rights, including auto-enrolment pension, holiday pay and sick pay.
The contract also attempted to authorise deductions for employer’s class 1 national insurance from Mr Blakely’ pay and included an ‘indemnity’ clause aimed at stopping him from pursuing any legal claims and gagging him from raising complaints with HMRC. He was told that if he did not sign the agreement his pay would be stopped. Despite this, Mr Blakely refused to sign.
The Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals
Policy News Journal
cipp.org.uk
Page 100 of 516
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker