Social housing providers will routinely have a number of construction projects underway at any one time. It is essential for client teams to understand and avoid key contract management pitfalls.
There has been a steady trickle, not quite a stream, as this new economy and its raft of rights are forged. We still await any changes following the Taylor Review, the Government is a little distracted at the moment!
- Tribunals and courts are looking beyond what is agreed between parties;
- Personal performance still key; this can be proved by the wording of documentation (Pimlico Plumbers and Mullins v Smith), and demonstrating that safeguarding checks are made against individuals (Addison Lee v Gasgoine);
- Commercial reality wins out; Uber AV v Aslam (on appeal): the drivers across the city were not all small business people as Uber asserted (such as Pimlico Plumbers and Mullins v Smith). Individuals cannot be clients nor customers if using employer branded equipment and vehicles;
The latest case involves the unlucky company of Addison Lee who appeared in an earlier ebriefing – Worker status: A tsunami of gig-economy claims. Mr Gasgoine, in the earlier case, was a cycle courier but Mr Lange, in this latest case, was a private-hire driver and hired liveried cars from a company associated with Addison Lee (Addison Lee v Lange & Ors). The general themes noticed above were again in evidence in the EAT’s judgement.
- The wording of the agreement where the drivers were deemed ‘independent contractors’ was set aside;
- The practicalities of the agreement – the drivers had to log onto a centralised booking system, give reasons they did not accept a booking and could be sanctioned if they didn’t accept bookings – were key to the judgement.
The only case that has bucked this trend and decided that individuals were not workers has been that of Independent Workers Union of Great Britain v RooFoods Ltd (t/a Deliveroo) TUR1/985(2016). This was before the Central Arbitration Committee, so there is a query as to whether it is binding in the Tribunal. That said, the principles are the same when applied.
- Personal performance was not required – substitution was permitted and importantly did occur in practice;
- There were no sanctions if individuals did not pick up a job
There is, we fear, little more to be said at this time as we await the Taylor Review and the judgement from the Court of Appeal in the case of Uber BV v Aslam.
A recent case stands as a good reminder to employers to be careful when distinguishing between pensionable employment under a pension scheme’s rules and employment under a contract of employment.
By early morning on 3 May, it was clear that there had been a huge change in the composition of many councils across the country.
Following our new partner announcement, it is with great pleasure that we can announce additional promotions.
Even those of us with zero football knowledge will most likely know of the shenanigans at a Chelsea FC game this season.
The gig economy, the tensions between it, and our more established ways of working are rarely far from the news these days.
The case of Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Crawford  EWCA Civil 269 will not win awards for excitement but is useful guidance when dealing with workers’ rest periods under the WTR 1998.
Non-UK nationals will surely be worried about an uncertain future, with much still unclear. These feelings will inevitably accompany people to work, and so employers need to be prepared.
Pension disputes in the LGPS need to be dealt with through the Internal Dispute Resolution Procedure. Join Doug Mullen for a free 45 minute webinar on getting the process right.
We’re delighted to announce that we have once again been ranked fourth in the list of the top legal advisers by number of charity clients in the Top 3000 Charities 2019 directory.
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.