Employment Law Update October 2017
Listed Under: News & Bulletins
UK Employment Law Update October 2017
Self Employment and the Gig Economy Again
In the case of Lange and others v Addison Lee Ltd an employment tribunal again dealt with the issue of self-employment and the gig economy. In this case, Addison Lee argued the claimants were self-employed drivers and so not entitled to holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations or to the payment of the national minimum wage.
The company argued the individual drivers were in business in their own right.
The tribunal concluded after 5 days of evidence and 2 days of deliberation that the individuals were not truly in business in their own right and a contract did exist between the parties. The tribunal determined the claimants were workers for the purposes of the Working Time Regulations and the national minimum wage legislation. A remedy is yet to be determined.
This case is further evidence of the difficulty employers face in seeking to categorise individuals as self-employed.
It is worth noting here this case follows on from the similar matter involving Uber, where the employment tribunal determined the Uber Drivers were not truly self-employed but workers. Uber appealed this decision and the appeal was heard last week at the EAT, although at the time of producing this update the EAT decision is unknown.
Asda and Equal Pay
In the Asda equal pay cases, Asda Stores Ltd v Mrs S Bierley and others, the EAT have determined that the female claimants who work in the stores can, in bringing their claims, rely upon male comparators working in the distribution centres. The matter will return to the employment tribunal for the case to proceed.
This EAT decision illustrates the ability of employees under the equal pay legislation to make a comparison of terms and conditions with those of the opposite sex even where they are employed in different jobs at different locations. Employers in these circumstances need to be able to justify such differences.
Please note this document provides very basic and general information and should not be read as legal advice. This is particularly so as each case hinges on its own merits.