‘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.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 19th July 2020
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘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.’
Cloisters, 19th May 2020
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘During these unprecedented times, working from home on a full-time basis has become the ‘new normal’. This is in stark contrast to before the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic began, when out of 32.6 million people in employment, only 1.7 million regularly worked from home. The change to enforced homeworking was swift and represented significant changes to the lifestyle and routines of both employers and employees, which, in turn, creates a number of legal and practical issues for employers. It is currently unknown how long homeworking will last for, or indeed if the outbreak of COVID-19 will cause a shift towards homeworking on a permanent basis.’
Thomas More Chambers, 30th April 2020
Source: www.thomasmore.co.uk
‘Birmingham Family Court will today introduce a wellbeing protocol which aims to end a ‘last minute’ work culture that increases stress on practitioners outside of work hours.’
Legal Futures, 14th January 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘A law firm has given its solicitors a concierge service to run their errands, prompting criticism that they are trying to chain staff to their desks.’
Daily Telegraph, 31st August 2019
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘In The City of Oxford Bus Services Ltd (t/a Oxford Bus Company) v Harvey [2018] UKEAT 0171 18 2112, the Company employed Mr Harvey, a Seventh Day Adventist, as a bus driver. Drivers were required to work on five out of seven days each week, including on Fridays and Saturdays but Mr Harvey, as an Adventist, was obliged to respect the Sabbath by not working between sunset on a Friday and sunset on a Saturday.’
Law & Religion UK, 18th March 2019
Source: www.lawandreligionuk.com
‘The previous blog post drew attention to the way in which the scope of rights protected in the UK may be diminished post Brexit if the Charter is not retained as part of domestic law. The second reason for retaining the Charter draws attention to the remedy provided when rights are breached. Individuals relying on the Charter at the moment can use the Charter to disapply legislation which breaches Charter rights. This is a legally binding remedy which invalidates the relevant legislation. This is not the case for those relying on common law rights, or their Convention rights under the Human Rights Act.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 4th February 2018
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘Last week, Lord Sumption delivered the majority decision of the Supreme Court on Benkharbouche v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs: Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Libya v Janah. The case would have been heard in December of last year, but for the small matter of Miller, which caused the hearing to be moved to June of this year. Brexit and Miller, however, do not only seem to have affected the timing of the hearing. They have also affected its importance. What might have been originally anticipated as a potentially defining moment – where the Supreme Court confirmed that the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms could be used as a stand-alone cause of action to disapply primary legislation and explained how this could be achieved – was translated into an almost blasé statement by the court that ‘a conflict between EU law and English domestic law must be resolved in favour of the former, with the latter being disapplied; whereas the remedy in the case of inconsistency with Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention is a declaration of incompatibility.’ What might once have seemed controversial has become run of the mill. What has led to the casual acceptance of ‘disapplication’ of a UK statute; and what will happen to disapplication – and the Charter – post-Brexit?’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 24th October 2017
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Nathaniel Caiden considers the recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) judgment in Dudley MBC v Willetts UKEAT/0334/16/JOJ that concerns the inclusion of voluntary overtime normally worked in calculating holiday pay.’
Cloisters, 1st August 2017
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘The Judge in Charge of Reform has expressed regret at “the extent of the widely-broadcast misunderstandings and ill-informed comments from a range of sources” on the Flexible Operating Hours Pilots.’
Local Government Lawyer, 4th August 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council has lost a case at the Employment Appeal Tribunal over how voluntarily-worked overtime is treated in the calculation of holiday pay.’
Local Government Lawyer, 3rd August 2017
Source: localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘In my capacity as the Judge in Charge of Reform, and in light of public comments – particularly from members of the legal profession – I thought it would be helpful to attempt to demystify the proposed Flexible Operating Hours Pilots. I regret the extent of the widely-broadcast misunderstandings and ill-informed comments from a range of sources.’
Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, 28th July 2017
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
‘The resident judge at Blackfriars Crown Court, one of the six courts due to take part in a Ministry of Justice (MoJ) pilot on extended court hours, has attempted to calm lawyers’ anger over the move.’
Legal Futures, 1st August 2017
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024