The ECJ has ruled on the definition of worker status under the EU Working Time Directive in the case of B v Yodel Delivery Network Ltd – is this good news for businesses? Time will tell.
Background
The Working Time Regulations (1998) (WTR) transposes the EU Working Time Directive (WTD). Regulation 2 of the WTR,
The Supreme Court has now delivered its judgements on two important cases involving the concept of vicarious liability. In both it has upheld the appeals holding that the employer was not vicariously liable.
The first case is WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants. The case concerned a data breach by a disgruntled employee
On 26 March the UK Government announced a package of support to self-employed individuals. The main points of the proposal are:
The Supreme Court has dismissed the latest appeal by Pimlico Plumbers Ltd (the Company) against the employment tribunal’s decision that one of its plumbers, Mr Smith, was a “worker” under the provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) and the Working Time Regulations 1998 (WTR). The Supreme Court held that, on the facts of
The Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) has ruled that the method of enforcement of the right to paid holiday in the UK Working Time Regulations (WTR) is incompatible with the EU Working Time Directive. This is because, if an employer refuses to pay a worker for a period of holiday, under the
In UK employment law a person’s employment status determines both their rights and responsibilities. An individual can be an employee, a worker or self-employed. Whilst traditionally individuals were employees or self-employed there has been a significant rise in “worker” status. The recent reported case of Aslam and others v Uber BV considered whether drivers had