What does the ruling mean?

The implication of the ruling is that thousands of Uber drivers will now be entitled to worker’s employment protections, including minimum wage and holiday pay, and could see Uber facing a very large pay out in compensation.

The wider consequences for the gig economy are yet to be seen.

Long Running Battle

Uber had previously lost in court three times against former drivers, James Farrar and Yaseen Aslam, before this final appeal to the Supreme Court.

The drivers originally won an employment tribunal in October 2016 and a subsequent appeal in 2017. Uber took the case to the High Court the following year but the decision was upheld yet again.

As the Supreme Court is Britain’s highest court, this was Uber’s last attempt to have the ruling turned around.

Impact on the Gig Economy

It is speculated that the ruling could have future ramifications for other companies with a similar business model (such as delivery firm Deliveroo). Mr Farrar, co-claimant and general secretary of the App Drivers and Couriers union, stated, “This ruling will fundamentally re-order the gig economy and bring an end to rife exploitation of workers by means of algorithmic and contract trickery.”

If you have any concerns over the employment status of the people you work with, or believe that your own status is wrongly classified, you can speak to one of our experts today on +441213184707.

Both clauses are part of a series of measures known as ‘restrictive covenants’ which are designed to protect the interests and continuation of the business when an employee leaves by temporarily restricting the activities of the departed employee. Unlike parliamentary originated laws written in acts and regulations, restrictive covenants have been developed over the years by a series of court cases. They should be no stricter than is required to protect the legitimate interests of the business and balance the interests of the business against the ability of the departing employee to earn a living.

Non-compete clauses may, for example, impose timed restrictions on the geographical area that an ex-employee can work, the type of work they cannot do or the genre of company they cannot work for. How could they be changed to make business environments more competitive and entrepreneurial? The Government has suggested four possible options:

• The employer should provide compensation to a former employee during the period of restriction (to dissuade employers from using such a clause unless absolutely necessary);
• Put statutory time limits during which such clauses can operate;
• Ensure companies disclose their non-compete clauses to prospective employees; or
• A total ban on their use.

Exclusivity clauses prevent an employee working for more than one employer and are already banned in zero-hour contracts, but the Government is now looking specifically at the 1.8m people who are on minimum wage levels and are earning less than £120 per week. A contractual exclusivity clause would prevent people in this group from being able to earn money with another employer and restrict the potential pool of applicants for those businesses which could expand by taking on more part-time staff. Banning such clauses for this group could benefit both the employees and those businesses who need a more agile and flexible workforce.

 We await the outcome of the review with interest.

Many firms ask those whose role has been made redundant to sign a Settlement Agreement. This is very common.

The purpose of such an agreement is to set out clearly, in one document, the terms of agreement. That way both the employer and employee  will know exactly where they stand after a role has ended.

The agreement should be clear on which payments are subject to deductions for Income Tax and National Insurance and should state which payments are payable on a ‘tax free’ basis. By signing an agreement the employee usually agrees not to make any future claim against the employer, with very few exceptions.

In order for the agreement to be binding an employee is obliged (and entitled) to receive independent legal advice.

At RMP we have a great deal of experience in advising on such agreements. We can provide that advice over the phone or by other media and there is no need to even leave your own home.

For a fast, free (to you) and supportive service please call us on +441213184707 and ask for Martin Thomas. We aim to complete the matter very quickly if that is what you would like. Same day completion can be achieved in many cases and it will almost always be at no cost to you as your employer will pay our fees. Alternatively send us your contact details and we will call you as soon as we are free.

Taxi drivers, delivery drivers and many others have been working on the basis that they are self-employed and therefore they have not enjoyed the rights afforded to those who work in different capacities.

The employment status of such individuals has been tested in a number of notable cases involving Uber and more recently recently in the Pimlico Plumbers case which was ultimately considered in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in the Pimlico Plumbers case that an individual claimant was a worker rather than being self- employed, thereby allowing the individual rights that he had not previously enjoyed.

The court looked at the reality of the work practices of the firm rather than the wording of the contractual terms that had been signed.

The case is considered by many commentators to provide clearer guidance as to the status of workers. The result however is not necessarily definitive and a number of cases await to be determined in the courts.

If you work on a ‘self-employed’ basis and wish to have clarification of your true status please give us a call and speak with Martin Thomas on +441213184707.

Some employers will take this as an unavoidable consequence of a national past-time, some employers will be joining their workers with aspirins and bacon sandwiches, whilst others will be justifiably concerned over safety issues.

Under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, employers have a duty to ensure a safe place of work and safe systems of work for their staff. When considering the issue of substance misuse, this would include having clear rules about coming to work under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Many staff handbooks will have a section that covers the use of alcohol.  If you don’t already have one in place, you can put a Substance Misuse Policy or guidelines as to the company’s approach to alcohol in the work place.  If you don’t feel that there is time to do this, then at least consider making your employees aware of the expectations that you have of them at this time.

If you’re unsure on how to approach this issue at your company, or are looking for advice on putting an effective policy in place, please email or call our Head of Employment Law, Martin Thomas, via martin.thomas@ritchmuellerpartners.com or +441213184707.

The rules are changing for any termination payments after the 6^th April 2018. There will be further changes in April 2019.

There will now be significant changes in this area, which has not seen any significant changes in the last 30 years. From 6^th April 2018 the legislation will, amongst other changes:

1. Effectively treat all payments in lieu of notice as earnings as subject to tax and class 1 NICs.
2. Permit HM Treasury to vary the £30,000 threshold by regulations.

From 6^th April 2019 the legislation will subject all termination payments above the £30,000 threshold to Class 1A NICs.

Whether you are an employer or an employee we would strongly advise that if you are considering entering into a Settlement Agreement that you take legal advice at an early stage to avoid any unexpected  difficulties or, indeed, any disappointments once the Settlement Agreement has become binding.

Employers, employees and GPs can continue to use the Fit for Work helpline and also the website for workplace health advice and support on sickness absence. Last Summer a survey by GP magazine found that 65% of GPs had not referred a single patient to the Fit for Work service.

The reason is that any organisation that is holding data relating to you must comply with the new regulation, GDPR, which will come into force on the 25^th May 2018. In due course, we will publish more detail of some of the changes, including the extended rights of anyone whose data is being held by a third party. In the meantime please do not simply discard the communications that are being sent to you.

They may look a bit dull, but they are likely to contain important information about the way in which your data is received, processed and ultimately destroyed.

Over 25s are entitled to £7.83 per hour, 21-24s  to £5.90, 18-20s to £4.20 and apprentices will be entitled to £3.70 per hour.