What did we get up to last month?
It’s been all change here over the last month – whilst we wish Katharine Holliday all the best as she heads off on maternity leave we welcome Nicky Cockerill to the team as a Senior Solicitor. Nicky qualified in 2008 and has experience in advising on all aspects of employment law and will be a valuable addition to the team.
Nicky and I were delighted to be asked to provide an employment law update to Point Recruitment’s clients at the Old Bridge in Huntingdon. It was great to see so many attendees there and thank you to those that came along and we look forward to seeing you at the next update.
Any new cases to be aware of?
In Aslam and others v Uber BV and others the Employment Tribunal has held that Uber drivers are workers for the purposes of Section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, Regulations 36(1) of the Working Time regulations 1998 and Seciton 54(3) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. Accordingly the drivers are afforded the rights conferred on workers including the right to be paid minimum wage, the right to be paid statutory holidays and not to have wages deducted unlawfully.
Whilst Uber argued that they merely provided technology which enabled drivers to contact passengers, and in no way provided the taxi services themselves, the Tribunal concluded they did provide taxi services and the drivers were engaged to deliver these services. Interestingly, Uber has contractual documentation which was intended to demonstrate the relationship between the relevant parties (Uber, the driver and the passengers) was that of a self employed nature. However, the Tribunal felt this did not reflect the true relationship and therefore took the view to disregard it.
This is a very interesting case and, in light of technological advances, could be quite significant. It is important to remember that the decision was very much based on the facts of the case and, as it is a tribunal decision, it is not binding on future cases.
In another case, Birmingham City Council v Bagshaw and others, the EAT held that an employment tribunal was entitled to order third party disclosure to assist employees to particularise their complaints for equal pay claims.
The facts of this case involved a group of employees who had been transferred under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2016 from the council to a new employer. The employees did not have the necessary information in order to particularise their claims and, as the basis of the claims were largely related to their period of employment with the council, they sought a third party disclosure order against the council (who were not party to the proceedings at that time) for judgments and orders in respect of specified equal pay multiple cases against the council. The employees argued the reasons for disclosure were that it would save the parties time and costs, the judgments contained information within the public domain, one party already had access to them and the situation created inequality between the parties which was contrary to the interests of justice.
The council refused the request claiming it was a “fishing expedition” but the employment tribunal decided the information should be disclosed. The council appealed the decision alleging that the Tribunal had not applied the test of relevance and necessity. The EAT dismissed the appeal and held that the focus on the overriding objective had been appropriate and fair.
This is an interesting issue and, whilst it may not be common within Tribunal’s, is nonetheless worth remembering if threatened with an application in the future and you have the relevant information requested.
To sign up to receive our monthly employment e-bulletin, please head to our newsletter subscription page.
