Working 12 consecutive days without a weekly rest break is permissible 13 November 2017
This employment law case involves a redundant casino worker in Portugal who claimed his employer had not given him a weekly rest period of 24 hours after six consecutive working days.
The casino where the worker claimed his employer had not given him a weekly rest period of 24 hours at the appropriate time, and said it should have been given at the latest after six consecutive working days, operated 12 hours a day, 364 days of the year. In this case Maio Marques da Rosa v Varzim Sol , the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that there was no requirement for weekly rest to be provided after six consecutive days of work, it can be provided within each 7- day period.
The EU’s Working Time Directive allows a working pattern with a rest day at the start of one 7-day period and another rest day at the end of the following 7-day period, so working 12 consecutive days is permissible.
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin which provided the details of this case.
Back to Contents
Worker Status: Uber Drivers are 'Workers' 13 November 2017
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has ruled that when the Uber app was switched on, drivers were workers for the purposes of their claims.
In the appeal case Uber BV v Aslam , the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) agreed with the tribunal that when the Uber app was switched on, Uber drivers were workers for the purposes of their claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Working Time Regulations 1998 and the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. When drivers had the app switched on, they were obliged to be "able and willing to accept assignments", were subject to a requirement that they "should accept at least 80% of trip requests", and would suffer a penalty if they cancelled a trip once accepted. Those matters were indicative of a worker relationship and inconsistent with the contractual documentation or a suggestion that drivers were in business on their own account. Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher applied and the Tribunal had to "determine what was the true agreement between the parties". Uber could not rely on an argument that the arrangements indicative of worker status were merely required by the regulatory framework for private hire licensing. That framework did not require Uber to carry out the "interview and induction process (onboarding) it chose to operate". The tribunal was entitled to find that Uber London Limited was not acting as agent between the drivers and passengers. While there may be "gaps" when the drivers did not have the app switched on and were not workers for Uber London Limited, that was not "fatal to their status as 'workers' when they did".
It is likely that Uber will appeal, and they may indeed seek a leapfrog appeal to the Supreme Court so this case can be heard at the same time as the Pimlico Plumbers case.
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin which provided the details of this case.
Back to Contents
Why the Deliveroo ruling against worker status is a ‘one-off’ 21 November 2017
The Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals
Policy News Journal
cipp.org.uk
Page 89 of 516
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker