In the UK, what employment law rights and protections a person has depends on their employment status. Employees have the most protection, workers (often referred to as “limb b workers” due to s 230(b) or the Employment Rights Act 1996 containing the statutory definition) have less, and independent contractors the least. The rise of the so-called “gig-economy” has largely operated on a business model of classifying individuals as “independent contractors”. The widely renowned judgment handed down by the Supreme Court in Uber v Aslam last year caused many businesses in this area to take stock and reconsider their arrangements.
By way of brief reminder, the Supreme Court ruled last year that Uber drivers were not self-employed contractors but workers. In clarifying the approach Tribunals should take to status questions, they ruled that the contract was not significant. The fundamental question was whether the individual should be protected according to the purpose of the statute, which was to protect vulnerable workers in a relationship of subordination (“the statutory purpose test”). For more on Uber, please see our previous blog here.
While the judgment in Uber was fairly unequivocal in approach, questions have been left unanswered and there remains a lack of clarity over how Tribunals would apply Uber in practice. Subsequent Tribunals have noted the authority of this approach, with the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in Sejpal rejecting previous iterations of status...
A whistleblower that received a share of the US government’s $150 million False Claims Act settlement with Walgreen Co. and Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc. couldn’t convince a federal court to rule ...