The Court of Appeal has confirmed this month that Uber drivers are workers rather than self-employed, in Uber v Aslam. The drivers’ contracts described them as independent contractors. They had to undertake an interview and an induction. They had to perform the work personally. Drivers used their own vehicles, but Uber stipulated appropriate brands and presentation standards. In providing jobs, Uber controlled the key information. They would provide drivers with a passenger’s first name but no surname, contact details or destination. Uber had complete control of the fares. Financial penalties could be incurred for departing from Uber’s suggested route.
Is an employer responsible for the actions of an employee who has ‘gone rogue’ and deliberately posted sensitive employee data online? Yes, the Court of Appeal has said in Morrisons v Various Claimants. Mr Skelton was an internal auditor at Morrisons. He had been recently disciplined and held a grudge against the company. He took sensitive personal data relating to thousands of employees and posted it online. He then told newspapers it was there. The data included names, bank details and salary information.
The holiday season might have ended, but holiday pay remains a hot topic. In Flowers v East of England Ambulance Trust, the Employment Appeal Tribunal looked at whether voluntary overtime should be included in holiday pay. Employees should be paid their ‘normal remuneration’ when they take holiday. But is voluntary overtime ‘normal’ pay?
Mr Tabberer and his colleagues were electricians. They were originally employed by Birmingham City Council. Their employment transferred several times by way of TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006) over the years. At the time of the tribunal claims, they were employed by Mears. The employees were contractually entitled to receive an Electricians’ Travel Time Allowance, though the historical reasons for the allowance no longer existed. Mears varied the employees’ contracts to remove the allowance, saying it was outdated.
Our pricing for bringing and defending claims for unfair or wrongful dismissal (excluding disbursements and Counsel’s fees).
Simple case: £8000 to £10,000 (excluding VAT)
Medium complexity case: £10,000 to £20,000 (excluding VAT)
High complexity case: £20,000 to £75,000 (excluding VAT).
Factors that could make a case more complex:
If it is necessary to make or defend applications to amend claims or to provide further information about an existing claim
Defending claims that are brought by litigants in person
Making or defending a costs application
Complex preliminary issues such as whether the claimant is disabled (if this is not agreed by the parties)
The number of witnesses and documents
If it is an automatic unfair dismissal claim e.g. if an employee is dismissed after ‘blowing the whistle’ on his/her employer
Allegations of discrimination which are linked to the dismissal
Disbursements
Disbursements are costs related to your matter that are payable to third parties, such as medical experts. We handle the payment of the disbursements on your behalf to ensure a smoother process.
Counsel’s fees
We would generally instruct a barrister to represent you at the Employment Tribunal hearing. Barristers’ fees are broken down into two areas: i.) a Brief fee, which covers their preparation for the hearing and the first day of the hearing and ii.) a Refresher, which covers each additional day after the first day of the hearing. Brief fees are estimated to be between £850 to £5000 plus VAT (depending on the level of experience of the Barrister, the complexity of the case and the length of the hearing). Refreshers are estimated to be between £700 to £1250 plus VAT (depending on the level of experience of the Barrister).
Key stages
The fees set out above cover all of the work in relation to the following key stages of a claim:
Taking your initial instructions, reviewing the papers and advising you on merits and likely compensation (this is likely to be revisited throughout the matter and subject to change)
Entering into pre-claim conciliation where this is mandatory to explore whether a settlement can be reached;
Preparing claim or response
Reviewing and advising on claim or response from other party
Exploring settlement and negotiating settlement throughout the process
Preparing or considering a schedule of loss
Preparing for (and attending) a Preliminary Hearing
Exchanging documents with the other party and agreeing a bundle of documents
Taking witness statements, drafting statements and agreeing their content with witnesses
Preparing bundle of documents for the Tribunal hearing
Reviewing and advising on the other party’s witness statements
Agreeing a list of issues, a chronology and/or cast list
Preparation and attendance at the Final Hearing, including instructions to Counsel
The stages set out above are an indication and if some of stages above are not required, the fee will be reduced. You may wish to handle the claim yourself and only have our advice in relation to some of the stages. This can also be arranged on your individual needs.
How long will my matter take?
The time that it takes from taking your initial instructions to the final resolution of your matter depends largely on the stage at which your case is resolved. If a settlement is reached during pre-claim conciliation, your case is likely to take four to six weeks. If your claim proceeds to a Final Hearing, your case is likely to take between six and twelve months. This is just an estimate and we will of course be able to give you a more accurate timescale once we have more information and as the matter progresses.
Contact us to speak to a member of the employment team.
A study by the University of the West of England argues that the working day is extended during commutes by advancements in technology. The study looked at 5,000 passengers commuting into London. Many employees were using their commuting time to send work emails from their phones and tablets.
Is it disability discrimination if an employer deals with an ill health retirement procedure badly? Not necessarily, the Court of Appeal has said. Mr Dunn was employed by the Ministry of Justice. He had depression and a serious heart condition. He applied for ill health early retirement. The process was handled badly and was unnecessarily bureaucratic. But was this poor treatment because of his disability (direct discrimination) or something arising in consequence of it (discrimination arising from disability)? The employment tribunal said yes, but the Employment Appeal Tribunal disagreed.
Are care workers who ‘sleep in’ at work entitled to the national minimum wage for the whole of their shift? In Mencap v Tomlinson-Blake, care workers had to spend the night at or near their place of work. They were expected to sleep for most of that period. They might be woken if their assistance was needed. Were they entitled to the minimum wage even when they were sleeping?
Can a tribunal make an employee choose their ‘best ten’ allegations in a discrimination claim?
Not usually, said the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Tarn v Hughes. Dr Tarn was a GP. She brought claims for sex and pregnancy discrimination. She had agreed a list of issues with the employer, which contained 21 acts of alleged direct discrimination, 19 of harassment and 6 of victimisation.
Is every medical condition a disability? And if an employee mentions a medical condition, does that mean the employer knew that the employee was disabled? Not necessarily, said the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Mutombo-Mpania v Angard Staffing Solutions. The employer supplied agency staff to Royal Mail. The employee had essential hypertension (high blood pressure) for which he took medication. However, in recruitment paperwork, the employee said that he did not have a disability and did not need adjustments. He worked late shifts at Royal Mail and had done some night shifts. When he was moved to night shifts, the employee wrote saying his ‘health condition’ prevented him working nights. After that, the employee failed to show up on four occasions in less than a month. He was then told he would not be given more work.
| 
