An employment tribunal has held that an Excel cycle courier was a worker and that his contract with the courier company mislabelled him as self-employed.
A recent legal ruling shows that sound judgment is needed during TUPE service provision changes to decide whether or not the activities carried out afterwards are "fundamentally the same" as before. Dr John McMullen advises on the ruling.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has confirmed the correct approach that tribunals should follow when calculating compensation for an infringement of reg.5(1) of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010.
This employment tribunal held, in White v Propharma Group MIS Ltd, that the employer had not indirectly discriminated against a female employee by requiring her to remove potential interruptions while working at home by arranging childcare.
In a second high-profile decision on employment status in the gig economy, this employment tribunal held that a CitySprint courier is a worker rather than self-employed.
This tribunal decision concerns a long-serving employee who was dismissed for making derogatory comments about his colleagues and his employer that he had posted on Twitter up to three years previously.
In Khan v Stripestar Ltd EAT/0022/15, the EAT held that an employment tribunal was entitled to find that a dismissal was fair despite a wholly defective and unfair initial disciplinary hearing, because the subsequent internal appeal cured the defects earlier in the process.
In McTigue v University Hospital Bristol NHS Foundation Trust [2016] IRLR 742 EAT, the EAT held that, in order for a claimant to be a "worker" within the meaning of the extended "whistleblower" definition in s.43K of the Employment Rights Act 1996, all that is required is that the end user substantially determined the terms under which the claimant carried out his or her work. It is not necessary to show that the end user determined those terms to any greater or lesser degree than the agency, of whom the claimant might also be an employee or worker.