Employment law is a complex and ever-evolving field, with new case law constantly emerging that can have significant implications for employers. In February, several key cases were decided that could impact how businesses manage their employees. Feltons Solicitors, a leading law firm specialising in employment law, has provided a comprehensive update on these cases and their potential implications for employers. This article will delve into these cases and provide an analysis of their potential impact.
Case 1: Uber BV and others v Aslam and others
The first case we will discuss is the landmark ruling in Uber BV and others v Aslam and others. This case was brought by a group of Uber drivers who argued that they should be classified as ‘workers’ rather than ‘self-employed’, entitling them to certain employment rights such as the minimum wage and holiday pay.
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the drivers, stating that they should indeed be classified as ‘workers’. This decision could have far-reaching implications for other gig economy businesses and those who use a similar business model.
Key Takeaways for Employers
- Businesses should review their contracts and working practices to ensure they are not incorrectly classifying their workers.
- Employers should be aware that the courts will look beyond the written terms of a contract to the reality of the working relationship.
- This case could lead to increased scrutiny of gig economy businesses and those using similar models.
Case 2: Royal Mencap Society v Tomlinson-Blake
The second case to discuss is Royal Mencap Society v Tomlinson-Blake. This case concerned whether sleep-in workers, who are required to stay at their workplace overnight but are only paid for the hours they are required to be awake, should be paid the national minimum wage for the entire shift.
The Supreme Court ruled that sleep-in workers are only entitled to the national minimum wage for the hours they are required to be awake for work, not for the entire shift. This decision provides much-needed clarity for employers in the care sector and other industries where sleep-in shifts are common.
Key Takeaways for Employers
- Employers should review their pay practices for sleep-in workers to ensure they are compliant with this ruling.
- This decision provides clarity for employers in the care sector and other industries where sleep-in shifts are common.
Case 3: Allay (UK) Ltd v Gehlen
The third case is Allay (UK) Ltd v Gehlen, which concerned whether an employer could be held liable for harassment by an employee, even if they had taken some steps to prevent such behaviour.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the employer could be held liable, as the anti-harassment training they had provided was ‘stale’ and ineffective. This case highlights the importance of regular, effective training to prevent harassment in the workplace.
Key Takeaways for Employers
- Employers should ensure they provide regular, effective anti-harassment training.
- Simply having a policy in place is not enough – employers must take proactive steps to prevent harassment.
Conclusion
These cases highlight the importance of staying up-to-date with employment case law. Employers should regularly review their policies and practices to ensure they are compliant with the latest legal developments. Feltons Solicitors can provide expert advice and guidance on all aspects of employment law, helping businesses to navigate this complex field.
