Plumbers to take self-employment case ruling to Supreme Court 11 August 2017
Pimlico Plumbers has been granted permission to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal , which ruled that one of the company’s former self-employed plumbers was entitled to employment rights.
CEO Charlie Mullins will take the case to the Supreme Court to appeal the case of Gary Smith, who despite being paid more than £500,000 over three years by Pimlico Plumbers, sued for employment rights, even though he signed a contract as a self-employed contractor.
The case, which has been running for more than six years, was heard by the Court of Appeal in February; however, the Supreme Court will now review the decision.
Charlie Mullins said:
“It’s wonderful that we have been granted permission to appeal our long-running and potentially ground breaking employment case to the Supreme Court. I have always maintained that Mr Smith was a self-employed contractor, and to my mind the evidence overwhelmingly supports our position.
…The ramifications of this case will impact upon many thousands of companies in the building industry and beyond and potentially affect the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of UK workers…”
Read more from Pimlico Plumbers .
Back to Contents
Suspension is not a neutral act 23 August 2017
The High Court recently ruled that the suspension of a teacher amounted to a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.
With thanks to Daniel Barnett's Employment Law Bulletin for its coverage of this case.
Did suspension of a teacher amount to a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence?
Yes, held the High Court in Agoreyo v London Borough of Lambeth . In this case, a teacher was suspended because of the force she used with two children. She had not been asked for her response to the allegations and there was no evidence of consideration given to any alternative to suspension. She resigned the same day. Foskett J held, following Mezey and Gogay, that suspension was not a neutral act, at least in the context of a qualified professional in a vocation, such as a teacher. Taking into account the statutory guidance for local authorities, it was noted that a knee-jerk reaction must be avoided and that suspension must not be the default position. The reason given for the suspension was not the protection of children, but to "allow the investigation to be conducted fairly"•.
The court concluded that suspension was adopted as the default position, was a knee-jerk reaction, and amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract. This was not undermined by a resignation in friendly terms.
NB the court did not have before it the question of whether this case was an attempt to circumvent the statutory qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims and fell within the 'Johnson exclusion zone'.
Back to Contents
Asda equal pay claims: Comparability 1 September 2017
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that claimants who work in Asda’s retail stores can compare themselves with higher paid men who work in distribution centres.
The Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals
Policy News Journal
cipp.org.uk
Page 85 of 516
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker