Uber BV v Aslam – Old Square Chambers

‘In this case the drivers argue Uber is a transportation company for whom they provide services as “workers”. Uber disagrees, arguing it is a technology services provider acting as an agent for drivers in their business relationship with passengers. The question for the Court is whether the drivers are “workers” for the purposes of s.230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, s.54(3)(b) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and reg.2(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. If this threshold is passed, a further issue is when the drivers are workers. Possible options include: (1) from the collection of the passenger until the driver reaches the passenger’s destination, (2) from the moment a booking is accepted until the passenger is dropped off, (3) any time when the driver is in the relevant territory with the Uber app switched on. This case is important as it provides an opportunity for the Supreme Court to provide guidance on the interpretation of Autoclenz v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41 and the correct approach to when it is permissible to disregard written contractual terms in an employment context.’

Full Story

Old Square Chambers, 21st July 2020

Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk

Equal Pay, Parental Rights, Personal Beliefs and Protest Movements – a review of recent developments in the areas of sport and employment law – Littleton Chambers

‘Across the board people have been reassessing how the traditional views of what it means to be an “employee” fit within our modern world.’

Full Story

Littleton Chambers, 21st July 2020

Source: littletonchambers.com

Have sports stars been caught out by Corona – Church Court Chambers

Posted July 28th, 2020 in contract of employment, coronavirus, news, remuneration by sally

‘It is not just in the worlds of finance and commerce where the effects of the global Corona Virus pandemic are currently being felt. The sporting world is also suffering at the hands of this novel virus. And many clubs are doing anything to make savings. But will that be enough? As has been publicised this weekend, Wigan Athletic Football Club have called in the administrators as a result of their financial woes. Seven years after winning the FA Cup, their fall from those dizzy heights has reached a new low.’

Full Story

Church Court Chambers, July 2020

Source: churchcourtchambers.co.uk

Uber v Heller and the Prospects for a Transnational Judicial Dialogue on the Gig Economy – II – Oxford Human Rights Hub

‘In the coming days, labour lawyers from around the world will be tuning in to watch the arguments in Uber v Aslam. In terms of the wider ramifications of the reasoning in Heller, what are the prospects for the ‘contractual’ and the “constitutional” approaches in Aslam? As already noted, the wider doctrine of unconscionability in Heller is unlikely to find favour in the English courts. More importantly, disputes about the employment contract in English courts are rarely about the contract rights themselves. The (private) contract is a gateway into a suite of (public) statutory employment protections. It would make little sense for a worker to seek to set aside the contract by using unconscionability as a vitiating factor, when the statutory protections depend upon the contract being valid and enforceable. This limits the practical relevance of Heller’s expanded unconscionability doctrine, given the statutory context to most employment litigation in the UK.’

Full Story

Oxford Human Rights Hub, 20th July 2020

Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk

Uber v Heller and the Prospects for a Transnational Judicial Dialogue on the Gig Economy – I – Oxford Human Rights Hub

‘Across the world, Gig employers are now facing a legal reckoning in the highest courts. On 21st July, the issue of whether Uber drivers are “workers” will be considered by a seven-member panel of the UK Supreme Court. This follows on from Mr Heller’s momentous victory in a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller which involved a legal challenge to a mandatory arbitration clause in a contract between Uber and an UberEATS driver. The arbitration clause required disputes to be referred to arbitration in Amsterdam, which would be subject to the law of the Netherlands. The clause also required the payment of US $14,500 as an upfront administrative cost. The appellant earned $20,800–$31,200 per year before taxes and expenses were deducted. Nor did the fee include other costs likely to be incurred in an arbitration, such as travel to Amsterdam, accommodation, and legal representation. Students of transnational labour law of a certain generation cut their teeth on great debates about “offshoring” and the disintegrative risks to labour standards posed by capital mobility. The Heller case is an important reminder that we are now in an era of juridical mobility: employing entities seek to escape national labour law systems without the cost and inconvenience of spatial mobility.’

Full Story

Oxford Human Rights Hub, 19th July 2020

Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk

Insolvency in the English Football League: impact on players and staff – Littleton Chambers

Posted June 11th, 2020 in contract of employment, coronavirus, debts, insolvency, news, remuneration, sport by sally

‘In relation to the EFL, there have been dire warnings that in the absence of a substantially increased contribution from the Premier League, up to 60 clubs could go out of business.’

Full Story

Littleton Chambers, 2nd June 2020

Source: littletonchambers.com

Knowledge test for duty of confidence – what is a sufficient state of mind to make an employer liable for breach of confidence when it receives a client list from a recruited employee? – Employment Blog

Posted June 11th, 2020 in confidentiality, contract of employment, EC law, employment, news by sally

‘In the recent case of Trailfinders v Travel Counsellors & Ors [2020] EWHC 591 (IPEC) the court reiterated that the test was not subjective: the recipient of the client list did not have to know the information was confidential. It was objective: in equity the recipient is under a duty of confidence whenever he ought to know that the information received is fairly and reasonably to be regarded as confidential, irrespective of his actual state of mind. Further, this was now also the statutory position because under Art. 4 (4) of Directive (EU) 2016/943 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition: “The acquisition, use or disclosure of a trade secret shall also be considered unlawful whenever a person, at the time of the acquisition, use or disclosure, knew or ought, under the circumstances, to have known that the trade secret had been obtained directly or indirectly from another person who was using or disclosing the trade secret unlawfully within the meaning of paragraph 3.”’

Full Story

Employment Blog, 9th June 2020

Source: employment11kbw.com

Revenue and Customs v Professional Game Match Officials Ltd – Old Square Chambers

‘The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) recently held in Revenue and Customs v Professional Game Match Officials Ltd that part-time football referees are independent contractors (rather than employees, whose match fees and other payments are subject to PAYE).’

Full Story

Old Square Chambers, 1st June 2020

Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk

Employment status: Revenue v Customs Commissioners v Professional Game Match Officials Ltd [2020] 5 WLUK 118 – 3PB

‘Professional Game Match Officials Limited (“PGMOL”) is a company whose 3 members are The Football Association Ltd (“the FA”), The Football Association Premier League Ltd (“the Premier League”) and the Football League Ltd (“the Football League”), now referred to as the English Football League (“the EFL”).’

Full Story

3PB, 2nd June 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Post-termination Restrictive Covenants & Constructive Dismissal – Square Global Limited v Leonard [2020] EWHC 1008 (QB) – 3PB

‘Mr Leonard was recruited as a Broker by Square Global Limited (“Square”) in February 2015. He resigned summarily on 11 November 2019. For around seven months prior to his resignation, Mr Leonard had been in discussions with a rival financial services business, Market Securities, about leaving Square and joining them instead.’

Full Story

3PB, 2nd June 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Changing contractual terms (or not!) in a TUPE Transfer – Ferguson and ors v Astrea Asset Management Ltd [2020] UKEAT0139/19 – 3PB

‘This was EAT decision involving 4 individuals – Mr F, Mr K, Mr L and Mr P. They were all directors of Lancer; Mr F and Mr K were employees of that company, and Mr L and Mr P were employed by companies which contracted their services to Lancer.’

Full Story

3PB, 2nd June 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Changes to terms and conditions; Individual and Collective Redundancy Consultation – 3PB

‘With employees starting to return to work (be that on a part-time basis or otherwise) and employers continuing to assess the viability of their businesses as going concerns, how might employers make changes to an employees’ contractual terms lawfully in order to avoid redundancies, for instance agreeing a reduction in wages?’

Full Story

3PB, 2nd June 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Guidance on making staff take holiday during the Coronavirus outbreak – Cloisters

Posted June 2nd, 2020 in contract of employment, coronavirus, EC law, holidays, news, working time by sally

‘In this article, Declan O’Dempsey considers the implications of the Guidance issued by the government on 13 May 2020 on holiday entitlement and pay during coronavirus (Covid-19) and urges employers to use considerable caution in seeking to follow the Guidance ordering workers to take annual leave on dates specified by the employer. Employers who choose to order staff to take holidays on specific dates within the Coronavirus outbreak shut down may face contractual or tribunal claims later. Further, the legal uncertainty may mean that they will face claims for penalising those who assert a right to take annual leave at a non-Covid 19 affected time or who refuse to take the leave as annual leave.’

Full Story

Cloisters, 19th May 2020

Source: www.cloisters.com

The Implied Term of Trust and Confidence and the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme: a Reply – Old Square Chambers

‘On 14 April 2020, our colleague Stuart Brittenden published an article arguing that the implied term of mutual trust and confidence (“the implied term”) requires employers to make use of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (“CJRS”) for agency workers, zero-hour contract workers, and employees, generally.’

Full Story

Old Square Chambers, 19th May 2020

Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk

Covid 19 Employment Law Series: Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme Direction: Where are we now? – Parklane Plowden Chambers

Posted May 29th, 2020 in contract of employment, coronavirus, news, remuneration by sally

‘With its publication on Friday 22 May 2020, immediately before the bank holiday weekend, you can be forgiven for having missed HMRC’s revised Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (“CJRS”) Direction, dated 20 May 2020 (“the Direction”). All claims for payment under the CJRS, made after 22 May 2020, must comply with the Direction. The Direction modifies the previous version dated 15 April 2020 and clarifies many, but not all, of the questions that arose therein.’

Full Story

Parklane Plowden Chambers, 27th May 2020

Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk

The Court of Appeal provides confirmation on the implications of the use of the Government’s coronavirus job retention scheme by companies in administration: Re Debenhams Retail Limited [2020] EWCA Civ 600 – Radcliffe Chambers

‘In a judgment handed down on 6th May 2020 in Re Debenhams Retail Ltd (in administration) [2020] EWCA Civ 600, the Court of Appeal provided confirmation on the implications for office holders and insolvent estates of using the Government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme in administrations, following the previous first instance decisions on the issue in Re Carluccio’s Ltd [2020] EWHC 886 (Ch) and Re Debenhams Retail Ltd [2020] EWHC 921 (Ch). Matthew Weaver considers the judgment and its implications in this briefing.’

Full Story

Radcliffe Chambers, 13th May 2020

Source: radcliffechambers.com

Injunction to prevent a breach of mutual trust and confidence: Smo v Hywel Dda University Health Board [2020] EWHC 727 (QB) – 3PB

‘The Court found in favour of the Claimant, a Consultant Surgeon, to restrain the Defendant from continuing a working relationships investigation into his alleged conduct, competence or behaviour, whilst carrying out disciplinary proceedings in parallel. The Defendant’s breached a duty of mutual trust it owed to the Claimant when they decided to embark on a working relationships investigation which was not decided through the exercise of a discretionary power expressly or impliedly conferred on it by the Claimant’s contract of employment.’

Full Story

3PB, 1st May 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

COVID-19: Frustration & Contracts of employment – 3PB

‘Frustration is a common law doctrine where a contract is treated as discharged by operation of law when an event has occurred which renders continued performance impossible, illegal or radically different to that contemplated by the parties when they entered into the contract. The doctrine was first established in Taylor v Caldwell (1863) 3 B&S 826, where a music hall had been destroyed by fire, but has developed thereafter.’

Full Story

3PB, May 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Pregnant healthcare worker sues NHS agency over employment rights – The Guardian

Posted May 14th, 2020 in contract of employment, coronavirus, health & safety, news, pregnancy by sally

‘A pregnant healthcare assistant is mounting a legal action against NHS Professionals, an employment agency owned by the Department of Health and Social Care, for refusing to put her on furlough, in what could be a landmark action for other vulnerable workers bearing the brunt of the lockdown.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 13th May 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

Law Commission unveils employment tribunal reform package – Litigation Futures

‘Doubling the time limit for launching claims to six months and allowing workers to bring breach of contract claims while still employed are among Law Commission recommendations for employment tribunal (ET) reform.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 30th April 2020

Source: www.litigationfutures.com