Terms and conditions templates toolkit

Facts: Drivers for the Uber platform argued that they were workers rather than self-employed contractors and thus entitled to worker rights including minimum wage, holiday pay, and other benefits.

Outcome: The Supreme Court ruled that Uber drivers are workers, not independent contractors. The court emphasised factors such as Uber’s significant control over the drivers and the requirement for drivers to accept the terms set by Uber without negotiation.

Key takeaway: This landmark case established that the degree of control and dependency in the working relationship determines employment status and entitlements.

Facts: Drivers for Addison Lee, a private hire and courier company, claimed they were workers and not self-employed contractors, seeking entitlements such as minimum wage and holiday pay.

Outcome: The Court of Appeal upheld the decision that Addison Lee drivers were workers, not self-employed contractors. The court looked at the level of control Addison Lee had over the drivers and the requirement for drivers to comply with company policies.

Key takeaway: This case reinforced the importance of evaluating the actual working relationship over contractual labels.

Facts: Couriers for Ecourier claimed they were workers and entitled to the protections afforded to workers under the Employment Rights Act 1996, despite being classified as self-employed.

Outcome: The Employment Tribunal ruled in favour of the couriers, determining that they were workers. The tribunal considered factors like the requirement to follow instructions, the lack of freedom to negotiate terms, and the control exerted by the company.

Key takeaway: This decision further solidified the precedent for evaluating the real nature of the working relationship.

Facts: This case involved historical allegations of sexual assault by a doctor who conducted medical examinations for Barclays Bank. The claimants argued that Barclays should be vicariously liable for the doctor's actions.

Outcome: The Supreme Court ruled that Barclays was not vicariously liable as the doctor was an independent contractor.

Key takeaway: The decision highlighted the distinction between employees and independent contractors, impacting how liability and employment terms are viewed when engaging third-party contractors.

Facts: Mrs. Brazel, a music teacher working on a zero-hours contract, claimed that her holiday pay was not being calculated correctly. She argued that it should be based on her average earnings over a 12-week period, as opposed to a pro-rata basis.

Outcome: The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Mrs. Brazel, determining that her holiday pay should be calculated based on her average earnings over a 12-week reference period, not pro-rated.

Key takeaway: This case clarified the correct method for calculating holiday pay for workers on variable hours or zero-hours contracts.

Facts: This case concerned whether sleep-in carers should receive the National Minimum Wage for the entire duration of their sleep-in shifts, or only for the time they are awake and actively working.

Outcome: The Supreme Court ruled that sleep-in carers are only entitled to the National Minimum Wage for the periods they are awake and required to work.

Key takeaway: This decision clarified the payment requirements for sleep-in shifts and the interpretation of working time under the National Minimum Wage regulations.

Facts: Kostal UK Ltd sought to bypass union negotiations by offering employees a direct pay deal. The union argued that this was an unlawful inducement to avoid collective bargaining.

Outcome: The Court of Appeal ruled that the direct offer to employees was unlawful as it was an attempt to undermine collective bargaining.

Key takeaway: This case reinforced the legal protections for collective bargaining and the obligations of employers to negotiate with recognised trade unions.