A delivery courier was a ‘worker’ despite his agreement containing what purported to be a substitution clause.
Contracts of employment
An employer was liable to pay the level of income protection payments set out in an offer letter and summary of benefits provided by the employee’s original employer prior to a TUPE transfer, even though those benefits were no longer covered under the employer’s insurance policy.
Riders for Deliveroo are not ‘workers’ and not in an ‘employment relationship’ for the purposes of European law such as to enable them to seek compulsory union recognition.
Mutuality of obligations, in the sense of an obligation to accept and perform some minimum amount of work, is not a prerequisite for ‘worker’ status.
Drivers for Uber are workers and therefore entitled to paid holiday, minimum wage and rest breaks.
For the purposes of a constructive dismissal claim, an employee did not affirm his contract by engaging in his employer’s grievance procedure.
An employee’s failure to return to work after her maternity leave amounted to acceptance of a repudiatory breach for the purposes of an unfair constructive dismissal claim.
The ECJ has held that a courier appeared to have been correctly classified as self- employed rather than as a worker, given his independence and the lack of subordination.
An employee was rightly compensated for loss of entitlement to benefits under a PHI policy when he was unable to ‘return to work’ following sickness absence. The ‘return to work’ was a return to the work he had been doing when he went off sick, not a return to any work.
A suspended employee successfully obtained an injunction against her employer allowing her to resume most of her duties because there was no justification to restrict such duties.
There is no implied term that salary details are confidential.
Suspending an employee accused of gross misconduct breached the implied term of trust and confidence leading to an unfair constructive dismissal and if an employer wants to argue that the employee has been dismissed for a fair reason, they must specifically set this out in their defence.
An employee had accepted, by her subsequent conduct, collectively agreed changes to pay and holiday arrangements that had been in place for several years.
While at first blush a post-termination restriction was too broad and therefore unenforceable, the offending words in the clause could be removed to render the remainder of the clause enforceable.
An employer does not usually need to wait for the conclusion of criminal proceedings before starting or continuing with internal disciplinary proceedings.
An employee with at least one month’s - but less than two months’ - continuous employment had a right to a written statement of employment particulars.
The right to statutory recognition of a union under art. 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) does not apply to delivery drivers who had specifically been found not to be workers as they had a genuine right of substitution which had been exercised.
Three drivers for a taxi and courier company were ‘workers’ and not independent contractors.
An employee’s letter giving ‘notice’ wasn’t an unambiguous resignation.
An employer wanting to vary an employment contract to incorporate more onerous post-termination restrictive covenants must ensure it has evidence of valid consideration for the change and should always obtain proof of agreement from the employee; ideally in the form of signature.
- Page 1 of 2