The Court was asked whether a district judge qualifies as a ‘worker’ for the purpose of the protection given to whistle-blowers under Part IVA of the 1996 Act, and if not then was the absence of protection an infringement of her human rights. Held: As an office holder, she was neither employee nor worker, and … Continue reading Gilham v Ministry of Justice: SC 16 Oct 2019
The claimants, Uber taxi service contractors, claimed to be ‘workers’ with associated employment rights. Held: They were such.  EW Misc B68 (ET) Bailii, Reasons Employment Rights Act 1996 230(3)(b), Working Time Regulations 1998 36(1), National Minimum Wage Act 1998 England and Wales Employment Updated: 25 January 2022; Ref: scu.571017
Uber drivers are workers JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Worker, employee or neither WORKING TIME REGULATIONS – Worker ‘Worker status’ – section 230(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996 (‘ERA’), regulation 36(1) Working Time Regulations 1998 (‘WTR’) and section 54(3) National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (‘NMWA’). ‘Working time’ – regulation 2(1) WTR The Claimants were current or former Uber … Continue reading Uber Bv v Aslam and Others (Jurisdictional Points – Worker, Employee or Neither : Working Time Regulations): EAT 10 Nov 2017
Obligation to Perfom Work Personally was Critical This appeal concerns the status of a courier delivering goods by moped. The question on the appeal is whether an employment tribunal was entitled to find that the claimant, Mr Augustine, was a worker within the meaning of section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and, in … Continue reading Stuart Delivery Ltd v Augustine: CA 19 Oct 2021
Working Time Regulations Issue as to whether Appellant was worker within s230(3)(b) of Employment Rights Act 1996 . The Employment Tribunal did not address question of personal obligation to work. Remitted to same Tribunal – Sinclair Roche applied: adjustment to quantum to allow for argument that mileage allowance was expense not remuneration. Judges: The Honourable … Continue reading Valuecable Ltd (T/A Retail Outlet Design) v Berry: EAT 12 Jan 2005
Smartphone App Contractors did so as Workers The court was asked whether the employment tribunal was entitled to find that drivers whose work was arranged through Uber’s smartphone application work for Uber under workers’ contracts and so qualify for the national minimum wage, paid annual leave and other workers’ rights; or whether, as Uber contended, … Continue reading Uber Bv and Others v Aslam and Others: SC 19 Feb 2021
EAT Jurisdictional Points: Worker, Employee or Neither – Whether a GP, whose services were provided to the Trust through a Cooperative, was a worker under section 230(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996. The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that he was not. Whether the Claimant had abandoned an argument that he was a worker under … Continue reading Suhail v Barking Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals and Another: EAT 11 Jun 2015
Car Cleaning nil-hours Contractors were Workers The company contracted with the claimants to work cleaning cars. The company appealed against a finding that contrary to the explicit provisions of the contracts, they were workers within the Regulations and entitled to holiday pay and associated benefits. The contracts were ‘nil hours’ contracts neither requiring nor entitling … Continue reading Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and Others: SC 27 Jul 2011
The Court was asked as to: ‘the liability for Value Added Tax of a company which markets and arranges holiday accommodation through an on-line website. The outcome turns on the appropriate characterisation of the relationship between the company, the operators of the hotels, and the holiday-makers or their travel agents (which is an English law … Continue reading Revenue and Customs v Secret Hotels2 Ltd: SC 5 Mar 2014
The claimant was a solicitor partner with the appellant limited liability partnership at their offices in Tanzania. She disclosed what she believed to be money laundering by a local partner. She was dismissed. She had just disclosed her pregnancy and claimed also in sex discrimination. The company appealed findings as to jurisdiction saying that she … Continue reading Clyde and Co Llp and Another v Bates van Winkelhof: CA 26 Sep 2012
Solicitor Firm Member was a Protected Worker The solicitor appellant had been a member of the firm, a limited liability partnership. She disclosed criminal misbehaviour by a partner in a branch in Africa. On dismissal she sought protection as a whistleblower. This was rejected, it being found that a member of such a firm was … Continue reading Clyde and Co LLP and Another v van Winkelhof: SC 21 May 2014
The parties disputed whether Mr Smith had been an employee of or worker with the company so as to bring associated rights into play. The contract required the worker to provide an alternate worker to cover if necessary.
Held: The company’s . .
The Nursing and Midwifery Council (‘the Respondent’) appealed the Employment Tribunal’s (‘the Tribunal’) conclusion that the Claimant, a panel member chair of its Fitness to Practice Committee, was a worker within the meaning of section 230(3)(b) . .
The claimant Uber drivers sought the status of workers, allowing them to claim the associated statutory employment benefits. The company now appealed from a finding that they were workers.
Held: The appeal failed (Underhill LJ dissenting) The . .