[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.0.100″ background_image=”http://davidk423.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/bdbf_final-stages-1-4-1.jpg” custom_padding=”|||” global_module=”2165″ saved_tabs=”all”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.26.6″ background_layout=”dark” custom_margin=”0px|||” custom_padding=”0px|||”]

Employment Law News

 

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”3.22.3″][et_pb_row column_structure=”3_4,1_4″ admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”3.25″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”][et_pb_column type=”3_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.26.6″ text_orientation=”justified” use_border_color=”off”]

Tribunal rules that workers are protected by TUPE

The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) provide extensive protection for employees who work for a business that is sold or who perform activities for a service that is outsourced.  But which individuals have the benefit of this protection?  In Dewhurst and ors v (1) Revisecatch Ltd t/a Ecourier and (2) City Sprint (UK) Ltd, an Employment Tribunal concluded that “workers” are covered by TUPE.

What does the law say?

The law deems different types of workers are entitled to differing levels of protection.  Traditional employees are best protected, whilst workers who are not strictly employed have some, but a lower level, of protection.

The question in this case is whether only traditional employees are covered by TUPE or whether the protection extends more broadly.  On its face, TUPE only protects “employees”, however, the definition of employee is wider than that used in the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA).  TUPE defines an employee as: “any individual who works for another person whether under a contract of service or apprenticeship or otherwise but does not include anyone who provides services under a contract for services.”  The use of the words “or otherwise” leaves open the question of whether other types of workers may be protected.   

Of greatest interest is whether the protection extends to those who qualify as:

• “workers” under the ERA (and/or the Working Time Regulations 1998); and/or
• “employees” under the Equality Act 2010 (this is a wide definition capturing workers and potentially also certain independent contractors).

There are three hurdles to qualifying as a worker.  First, there must be a contract between the parties.  Second, that contract must provide for personal service by the worker.  Third, the other party to the contract must not be a client or customer of the individual’s profession or business undertaking. 

Previous cases have confirmed that TUPE protection only applies where there is a contract in place between the parties which provides for personal service.  Logically, it seemed that “workers” would, therefore, pass the “employee” test under TUPE.  However, until now, there has been no explicit ruling on this point, which caused uncertainty.

What happened in this case?

The claimants worked for City Sprint as cycle couriers providing courier services for a client called HCA Healthcare.  In 2016, one of the claimants brought an Employment Tribunal claim against City Sprint and was found to be a worker.  Two years later, City Sprint lost the HCA Healthcare contract to a rival, Ecourier.  The claimants stopped working for City Sprint on 31 January 2018 and began working for Ecourier the next day. 

The claimants brought claims against both City Sprint and Ecourier, including for failure to inform and consult under TUPE.  These claims could only proceed if the claimants, as workers, came within the wider definition of employee used in TUPE.  A Preliminary Hearing was held to decide this point.

What was decided?

The Employment Judge decided that the words “or otherwise” were designed to reflect a broader class of working relationship beyond traditional employment.  He concluded that the words should be construed to include both workers under the ERA and employees under the Equality Act 2010.

What are the learning points?

It should be noted that this decision is not binding on other Tribunals and, given the importance of the issue, it is quite likely that it will be appealed.  In the meantime, however, this decision is helpful to workers who are working for a business or service that is to be sold or outsourced.  They can seek to rely on this decision to say that they have the right to be informed and consulted about the transfer and to transfer automatically to the new employer on their existing terms and conditions.  Once transferred, they will also be protected from variations to their terms and conditions save in limited circumstances. 

However, they will not acquire the all-important automatic unfair dismissal protection.  The right to claim unfair dismissal is only available to those who qualify as employees under the ERA.  TUPE preserves, not improves, employment rights and so a worker is not converted to an employee under the ERA just because they are within the scope of TUPE.  Therefore, an employer who inherits workers under TUPE will be able to dismiss them by reason of the transfer without the risk of an unfair dismissal claim.  However, they could face claims of up to 13 weeks’ actual pay per worker if they fail to engage in an information and consultation process.

Employers looking to acquire a business (or take over a service contract) should conduct appropriate due diligence to identify the seller’s worker population.  To complicate matters, where the seller engages independent contractors, the buyer will need to scrutinise whether those contractors might, in fact, be workers.  Failing to do this could result in a deficient information and consultation process and leave the buyer (and seller) exposed to claims.

Dewhurst and ors v (1) Revisecatch Ltd t/a Ecourier and (2) City Sprint (UK) Ltd

If you would like to discuss any of the issues raised in this article, please contact Amanda Steadman or your usual BDBF contact.

 

 

 

 

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_sidebar orientation=”right” area=”sidebar-1″ _builder_version=”3.0.74″ remove_border=”off”][/et_pb_sidebar][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.26.6″][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.26.6″][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

[et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.0.100″ background_image=”http://davidk423.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/bdbf_final-stages-1-4-1.jpg” custom_padding=”|||” saved_tabs=”all” next_background_color=”#ffffff” global_module=”2165″][et_pb_row global_parent=”2165″ custom_padding=”|||” _builder_version=”3.0.100″][et_pb_column type=”2_3″][et_pb_post_title global_parent=”2165″ meta=”off” featured_image=”off” text_color=”light” _builder_version=”3.0.99″ custom_margin=”||0px|” custom_padding=”||0px|” /][et_pb_text global_parent=”2165″ background_layout=”dark” _builder_version=”3.0.100″ text_font=”||||||||” custom_margin=”0px|||” custom_padding=”0px|||”] [post_details] [Social-Share] [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_3″][et_pb_post_title global_parent=”2165″ title=”off” meta=”off” _builder_version=”3.0.99″ /][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” prev_background_color=”#000000″][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial”][et_pb_column type=”3_4″][et_pb_text use_border_color=”off” _builder_version=”3.2.2″ text_orientation=”justified”]

The Supreme Court has added to the raft of cases concerning whether staff in the gig economy are workers, and so entitled to paid holiday and limited other rights, or genuinely self-employed and out of employment protection altogether.

This case concerned a plumber working for Pimlico Plumbers, who claimed that the company had deprived him of a number of employment rights such as paid holidays and sick pay because it wrongly classified him as a self-employed contractor. The factors for the Court to consider were:

• that the plumber, Mr Smith, had to drive a Pimlico Plumbers branded van with a tracker in it, had to wear a Pimlico Plumbers branded uniform, and carry a company ID card;
• he was not under a specific obligation to accept work, and Pimlico was not specifically obliged to provide it, but Mr Smith’s contract stated he must work at least 40 hours per week for Pimlico;
• Mr Smith had to provide his own tools and equipment and would not be paid in the event a customer failed to settle an invoice;
• Mr Smith had to secure his own liability insurance;
• he was VAT registered, invoiced Pimlico for his pay, and submitted tax returns to HMRC on the basis of being self-employed;
• there was a contractual right to provide a substitute to carry out the work he had agreed to do, but it was limited only to other plumbers already working for Pimlico; and
• Mr Smith was subject to restrictive covenants under his contract.

The Supreme Court held that Mr Smith was a worker with entitlement to various employment rights. It held that the right to substitute himself for another Pimlico plumber, given that it was fettered, was not enough to prevent there being a personal service relationship – the defining characteristic of worker status. The facts showed that Pimlico had tight control over Mr Smith’s working life, which pointed away from Mr Smith being a truly independent contractor.

This case is the first time a gig economy worker status question has come before the Supreme Court, and its decision that Mr Smith was a worker follows the direction of travel set by other cases. That said, the question of employment status is always tied closely to the facts of any given case, such that it does not automatically follow that other gig economy workers have employment rights. More cases are due to make their way through the courts and tribunals in the coming months.

Pimlico Plumbers Ltd and Mullins v Smith [2018] UKSC 29

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_4″][et_pb_sidebar orientation=”right” area=”sidebar-1″ background_layout=”light” remove_border=”off” show_border=”on” /][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

[et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.0.100″ background_image=”http://davidk423.sg-host.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/bdbf_final-stages-1-4-1.jpg” custom_padding=”|||” saved_tabs=”all” next_background_color=”#ffffff” global_module=”2165″][et_pb_row global_parent=”2165″ custom_padding=”|||” _builder_version=”3.0.100″][et_pb_column type=”2_3″][et_pb_post_title global_parent=”2165″ meta=”off” featured_image=”off” text_color=”light” _builder_version=”3.0.99″ custom_margin=”||0px|” custom_padding=”||0px|” /][et_pb_text global_parent=”2165″ background_layout=”dark” _builder_version=”3.0.100″ text_font=”||||||||” custom_margin=”0px|||” custom_padding=”0px|||”] [post_details] [Social-Share] [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_3″][et_pb_post_title global_parent=”2165″ title=”off” meta=”off” _builder_version=”3.0.99″ /][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” prev_background_color=”#000000″][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial”][et_pb_column type=”3_4″][et_pb_text background_layout=”light” use_border_color=”off” border_color=”#ffffff” border_style=”solid” _builder_version=”3.0.99″]

A university’s decision to install surveillance cameras in student auditoriums amounted to a breach of their human rights to privacy of the two professors who taught in them.

The University of Montenegro had decided to install surveillance cameras in student auditoriums. It claimed it was doing so for the protection of property and people and in order to monitor teaching. The two affected professors brought claims challenging that decision.

The European Court of Human Rights held that the decision to install the cameras was a breach of the professors’ privacy rights. Although Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights bestows the right to respect for private and family life, “private life” should be interpreted broadly to include private social lives. This may also include professional activity which takes place in public.

In addition to teaching, the professors interacted with their students socially in the auditoriums. It was therefore like any other workplace, so surveillance of it (whether done openly or covertly) constitutes an intrusion into employees’ private lives.

In that case, the university’s surveillance could only continue if it went no further than is necessary in pursuit of a legitimate aim. Whilst protection of people and property could be a legitimate aim in the abstract, in this case there was no evidence of people or property being at risk. Therefore, the measures could not be justified by reference to that aim. The monitoring of teaching, on the other hand, was not capable of being a legitimate aim.

Antović and Mirković v Montenegro (Application no. 70 838/13) [2017] ECHR 1068

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_4″][et_pb_sidebar orientation=”right” area=”sidebar-1″ background_layout=”light” remove_border=”off” show_border=”on” /][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

[et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ fullwidth=”on” _builder_version=”3.0.99″ next_background_color=”#000000″ global_module=”2027″][et_pb_fullwidth_post_title admin_label=”Insight Header” global_parent=”2027″ meta=”off” featured_placement=”background” text_color=”light” _builder_version=”3.0.99″ title_font=”||||||||” meta_font=”||||||||” background_color=”rgba(12,113,195,0.5)” background_blend=”multiply” custom_padding=”150px||100px|”]

 

[/et_pb_fullwidth_post_title][/et_pb_section][et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.0.47″ prev_background_color=”#000000″][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.0.47″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”][et_pb_column type=”1_2″][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.0.99″]

Given the potentially serious consequences of getting it wrong, here are some top tips for employers to prevent harassment and deal with allegations.

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_2″][et_pb_cta title=”#TIMESUP– Preventing Harassment In The Workplace” button_url=”/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/BDBF-article-rebrand-Preventing-harrassment.pdf” button_text=”View PDF” background_color=”#1d7079″ _builder_version=”3.0.99″ custom_button=”on” button_text_color=”#ffffff”]
[/et_pb_cta][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]