Is a zero-hours contract employee entitled to pay whilst they are suspended and thus not working any hours?
Contracts of employment
Where there is a genuine entitlement to summarily dismiss, an employee cannot rely on the deeming provisions in the Employment Rights Act to get to two years’ qualifying service.
Where there was no obligation to provide or accept work, and the other features of the relationship were not inconsistent with this, there was no contract of employment.
The Supreme Court has handed down its decision in the Pimlico Plumbers case which focussed specifically on the question of whether a plumber stated to be self-employed in his contract was in fact a worker. It unanimously upheld the decision of all the courts below that Mr Smith was indeed a worker.
The EAT reject an appeal by a courier company against a tribunal decision that one of its cycle couriers was a ‘worker’ entitled to paid holiday.
Employees who continued to work following their employer’s imposition of a pay freeze did not thereby agree to a variation of contract, despite the fact that their tribunal claim wasn’t begun until two years later.
Where a contract is silent on when notice takes effect, it is effective when it’s actually received by the employee and they have read it (or had a reasonable opportunity to do so).
There was no breach of contract where an employer refused to pay a minimum bonus during the employee’s period of garden leave. Against a background of declining revenues and the employee’s refusal to forgo his bonus, the decision to place him on garden leave was not irrational.
Continuing to work and receive pay (and an employer loan) did not amount to acceptance of a unilaterally-imposed contractual variation.
Riders for Deliveroo are not ‘workers’ but rather independent contractors according to a ruling by the Central Arbitration Committee.
Drivers for Uber are ‘workers’ says the EAT. Dismissing Uber’s appeal, the EAT holds that the drivers worked for Uber as part of its business rather than there being any sort of agency relationship.
An exclusive jurisdiction clause in Ryanair cabin crew contracts, which stipulated that only the Irish courts had jurisdiction with regard to any claims made by Ryanair’s employees, was not enforceable.
An employer’s handling of a restructure which impacted upon an agreed flexible working pattern led to a successful constructive dismissal claim.
Pimlico Plumbers v Smith
A plumber engaged by a London firm, Pimlico Plumbers and described as ‘self-employed’ was in fact a ‘worker’ says the Court of Appeal, upholding the original judgment of the employment tribunal.
- Page 2 of 2