Tag Archive: #injunction

  • Employment Law Case Update – July 2023

    A round-up of the most significant employment law cases to be published over the last month, and it’s a varied bag. We look at what lead to an interim injunction before a disciplinary hearing, whether it was lawful for the government to revoke legislation without consultation, whether a person can have two employers at the same time for the same work, whether a dismissal meeting is always needed to ensure a fair process and how a lay tribunal member could be considered to have been biased.

    • Injunctions: Witnesses and disclosure of documents at disciplinary hearings
    • Strikes: Could the government revoke legislation to prevent strikers being replaced by agency staff?
    • Worker Status: Can a person have two different employers at the same time for the same work?
    • Unfair Dismissal: Lack of dismissal meeting does not render dismissal unfair
    • Tribunals: Apparent bias in case of lay member posting on social media

    Injunctions: Witnesses and disclosure of documents at disciplinary hearings

    In Colbert v Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust [2023] EWHC 1672 (KB), the Claimant, Dr Serryth Colbert, was a consultant in oral and maxillofacial surgery, employed by the Defendant, the Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust. The Claimant was the subject of disciplinary proceedings brought by the Defendant following allegations that he intimidated and bullied colleagues and other allegations of misconduct. The Claimant issued proceedings on 30 May 2023 seeking an interim injunction relating to the conduct by the Defendant of the disciplinary process.

    This case involved two issues in dispute: 1) whether the Claimant had a right to require the attendance of individuals at a disciplinary hearing, who were interviewed as part of the investigation of allegations against him, but who the Defendant was not proposing to call to give evidence, and 2) whether the Claimant was entitled to disclosure of specific documents as part of the disciplinary process, and in particular to an unredacted report that had been produced into alleged misconduct in his department. The Claimant claimed that the way the Defendant had dealt with those two matters breached express contractual obligations, contained in two documents which he contended formed part of his contract: (1) “Maintaining High Professional Standards in the Modern NHS” (“MHPS”) published by the Department of Health; and (2) “Managing Conduct Policy” (“MCP”), the Defendant’s policy for dealing with allegations of misconduct.

    In December 2020, the Defendant commissioned an external review to examine the department in which the Claimant worked following allegations having been raised of inappropriate workplace behaviour. A report was produced in February 2021 (“the Atkinson Report”) by the external reviewer, and considered the behaviour of a number of individuals, including the Claimant, and made recommendations, one of which was that the Claimant should be investigated for alleged bullying / inappropriate behaviour. The Claimant was excluded from work from 8 March 2021 while an investigation was carried out (conducted pursuant to the MHPS). An external report was commissioned involving the interviewing of 21 witnesses, including the claimant, and a further report submitted in December 2021 (“the Cunningham Report”). The Report made a number of critical findings about the Claimant including that he had displayed intimidating and bullying behaviour towards a number of colleagues.

    On 16 December 2021 a letter was sent to the Claimant with the outcome of the investigation, concluding that the Claimant had a case to answer in relation to a series of allegations, and that the matter would proceed to a disciplinary panel, to be held in January 2023, in accordance with the Defendant’s MCP. The letter stated who would be called as witnesses for the Defendant and who else would be giving evidence, and invited the Claimant to identify who he would be calling, and enclosed a number of documents including the Cunningham Report and a redacted copy of the Atkinson Report (the redactions relating to the other individuals identified by the report).

    In January the Claimant wrote back to state the Claimant required that 11 named individuals, described as “management witnesses”, should be present so they could be questioned, and that the Claimant intended to call “around 30 additional witnesses subject to their availability”, and asked for the hearing date to be rescheduled. The Defendant responded by acceding to a later hearing date (May) but declined to provide the 11 witnesses, other than Ms Cunningham who had prepared the second report, and said that he had received all the relevant documents, and the redacted parts of the Atkinson report related only to other members of staff and were not relevant to this investigation.

    The Claimant sent a letter before claim setting out:

    1. Grounds: The alleged Breaches of Contract by the Defendants are the failure to follow its disciplinary procedures, and to hold a disciplinary hearing in accordance with the Claimant’s contractual rights. These rights are confirmed in the doctor’s employment contract, in [the MHPS] and in the [MCP].

    2. The failure to require the Defendant’s primary witnesses to attend the disciplinary hearing so that they can be cross examined by the Claimant’s chosen representative.

    3. The failure to allow the Claimant to bring his chosen representative to represent him at the hearing in breach of the amended procedure.

    4. The failure to disclose documents pertaining to the disciplinary case in line with MHPS.

    The Defendant declined to agree and due to the tight schedule that the letters had caused prior to the rescheduled May disciplinary hearing, the Claimant issued an interim injunction for breach of the Claimant’s contract – the order sought to ensure un-redacted disclosure of all documents, to ensure that all the Defendant’s management witnesses attend the disciplinary hearing and the Claimant’s chosen representative was allowed to represent him at the disciplinary hearing and conduct cross-examination.

    In the High Court, (King’s Bench Division) the judge held that, on the correct reading of the Defendant employer’s policy for dealing with allegations of misconduct (the MCP), the employee did not have an unqualified right to insist that any ‘management witness’ could be required to attend a disciplinary hearing to be cross-examined. Accordingly, the court dismissed the employee’s application for an interim injunction. The employee had sought the injunction to ensure unredacted disclosure of all documents, and to ensure that all the defendant’s management witnesses attended the disciplinary hearing, so that they could be cross-examined, and he had contended that the employer had breached express contractual obligations.

    The court held that there was no serious issue to be tried, because: (i) the claimant had no real prospect of establishing that his interpretation of the relevant paragraph of the MCP (namely that it meant that the employer had to ensure the attendance at any rescheduled disciplinary hearing of all management witnesses, so that they can be subject to cross examination) was correct; and (ii) there was a good argument that the proceedings should run their course before it would be appropriate for the court to intervene, in circumstances where it was settled law that courts should not become involved in the ‘micromanagement’ of disciplinary proceedings. Further, the court held that the employee had no real prospect of establishing that an investigative report that a Trust had commissioned into a department at a hospital constituted ‘correspondence’, as the word was ordinarily understood or as it was intended to be used in the MHPS. Moreover, there was no real prospect of his establishing that ‘relevant’ material had been withheld from the employee and, even if the report amounted to correspondence, he would not have an unqualified right to have the unredacted report disclosed to him.

    Back to the top

    Strikes: Could the government revoke legislation to prevent strikers being replaced by agency staff?

    In R (on the application of ASLEF and others) v Secretary of State for Business and Trade [2023] EWHC 1781 (Admin) the High Court considered whether it was lawful for the government, without consultation, to revoke legislation which prevented workers on strike being replaced by agency workers. From 1976 it was unlawful for an employment business knowingly to introduce or supply workers to an employer to carry out the work of employees who were taking part in official industrial action. Regulations made pursuant to section 5 of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and most recently regulation 7 of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/3319 – “the 2003 Regulations”), made this a criminal offence.

    In 2015, the Government conducted a public consultation on a proposal to revoke regulation 7. The majority of the responses did not favour this change in the law and, in 2016, it was decided not to go ahead. In June 2022, however, the Government decided, in the context of industrial action in the rail sector and other anticipated industrial action, that regulation 7 would be revoked without further public consultation. On 27 June 2022, the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2022 (SI 2022/852 – “the 2022 Regulations”) were therefore laid before Parliament, regulation 2(a) of which implemented this measure. The 2022 Regulations were made by the then Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (“BEIS”), Mr Kwasi Kwarteng, on 20 July 2022 and they came into effect on 21 July 2022.

    Thirteen trade unions challenged the then Secretary of State’s decision to make the 2022 Regulations. The challenge is on two grounds:

    1. that he failed to comply with his statutory duty, under section 12(2) of the 1973 Act, to consult before making the 2022 Regulations (“Ground 1”).
    2. it is contended that, by making the 2022 Regulations, the Secretary of State breached his duty, under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”), to prevent unlawful interference with the rights of trade unions and their members (“Ground 2”).

    The High Court confirmed that the challenge succeeded on the basis of Ground 1 and quashed the Regulations. In particular, it found that the decision to revoke the legislation preventing the use of agency workers in place of striking workers “was not informed by, or tested against, the views of and the evidence of bodies which were representative of the interests concerned”. The Secretary of State could not rely upon consultation which had taken place 7 years earlier on the same point (and was found not to have done so in any event).

    The High Court, having upheld Ground 1, decided not to express a view on the more contentious Ground 2.

    Back to the top

    Worker Status: Can a person have two different employers at the same time for the same work?

    In United Taxis Ltd v Comolly [2023] EAT 93,  the EAT considered Mr Comolly’s worker status. He is a taxi driver, registered with United Taxis and who then did work driving United Taxis’ passengers, through one of its shareholders, Mr Parkinson, using his taxi.  After that relationship came to an end he did work driving United Taxis’ passengers, through another shareholder, Mr Tidman, using his taxi.  After that relationship ended he brought various complaints to the employment tribunal asserting that he was either an employee or a worker of United Taxis or Mr Tidman.

    The tribunal determined as preliminary issues that Mr Comolly was a worker of United Taxis and an employee of Mr Tidman. On the facts found, the tribunal properly concluded that United Taxis’ passengers’ contracts were, and were solely, with United Taxis. It also properly concluded that, under Mr Comolly’s contract with Mr Tidman, Mr Comolly provided services to him in exchange for payment.  United Taxis contracted out the task of conveying its passengers to Mr Tidman, who in turn sub-contracted it to Mr Comolly. 

    However, the EAT noted that the key cases of Brook Street Bureau v Dacas and Cable & Wireless v Muscat had found the concept of dual employment to be “problematic” and concluded that it could not “see how [the problems] could be overcome”. It therefore found that the tribunal erred in finding that Mr Tidman had a contract with United Taxis under which he also did work for it.  There was no necessity to imply such a contract, whether from the fact that he registered with United Taxis, and was required to comply with its rules and byelaws as a condition of being permitted to convey its passengers, or otherwise.  The tribunal could also not properly find that he was simultaneously an employee or worker of two employers in respect of the same work.

    The tribunal also erred in finding that Mr Comolly’s contract with Mr Tidman was a contract of employment, in particular in its approach to the question of control. In particular, although Mr Tidman controlled when the taxi was available to Mr Comolly, he had no control over what Mr Comolly did during the time that the taxi was available to him. Drawing on its findings of fact, a finding was substituted that Mr Comolly was a worker of Mr Tidman.

    Back to the top

    Unfair Dismissal: Lack of dismissal meeting does not render dismissal unfair

    In Charalambous v National Bank of Greece [2023] EAT 75, the EAT considered the process of dismissal. It found that the lack of a meeting between an employee and the dismissing officer will not in and of itself, in all circumstances, make a dismissal unfair. It found that the decision in Budgen & Co v Thomas [1976] ICR 344 (EAT), was not an authority for the proposition that a dismissing officer must always have direct communication with an employee in order for a misconduct dismissal to be fair. Such a meeting is desirable and good practice but what is essential is that the employee is given the opportunity to ‘say whatever he or she wishes to say’ and there is nothing to say that this communication cannot, in principle, be in writing or by way of a report to the dismissing officer, according to the EAT. In any event, the Employment Tribunal had looked at the procedure adopted by the respondent as a whole: it found that any procedural unfairness in the initial decision to dismiss was sufficiently addressed by the internal appeal, which involved a meeting between the claimant and the decision-maker. The claimant’s appeal against the Employment Tribunal’s finding that her dismissal for misconduct had been fair was therefore dismissed.

    Back to the top

    Tribunals: Apparent bias in case of lay member posting on social media

    In Aspect Windows (Western) Limited V Retter (as representative of the estate of Mrs C McCrorie) [2023] EAT 95 following the publishing of the decision of the employment tribunal arising from a full merits hearing, one of the lay members of the tribunal posted on her LinkedIn page, a link to a report about the decision in the Mail Online. Followers of hers then responded on LinkedIn and she responded to them.

    The unsuccessful Respondent in the employment tribunal appealed on the basis that the LinkedIn posts gave rise to apparent bias against it. The EAT held that whilst it is possible that what a tribunal member said about a case after the event could shed light as to their approach to the hearing of it, the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the contents of these posts and applying the guidance in Magill v Porter [2001] UKHL 67 and other pertinent authorities, would not in the circumstances consider the lay member was biased in favour of the Claimant. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

    Back to the top

    Further Information:

    If you would like any additional information, please contact Anne-Marie Pavitt or Sophie Banks on: hello@dixcartuk.com

  • Employment Law General Update – April 2023

    A lot going on this month. New rates and consultations regarding NLW and NMW, new requirement for immigration scale-up route, an update on the Retained EU Law Bill and discussions over the definition of ‘sex’ under the Equality Act. Meanwhile, there is a review into whistleblowing law, an inquiry into seasonal worker visas, a blog on loneliness in the workplace, and a review relating to the work prospects of autistic people.

    • Staff Pay: Changes to rates of National Living Wage and National Minimum Wage and 2023 consultations
    • Whistleblowing: Government launches whistleblowing law review
    • Immigration: Home Office publishes details of a new endorsement requirement for the Scale-up route
    • Immigration: MAC Chair publishes letter regarding inquiry into Seasonal Worker visa
    • Welfare: Glassdoor reveals survey findings on employee loneliness
    • Disability: DWP publishes new review to increase work prospects of autistic people
    • Disability: Commons briefing highlights lowest rates of employment among disabled people are for those on autism spectrum
    • Brexit: An update on the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill
    • Equality Act: EHRC respond to Minister’s request to clarify the definition of ‘sex’

    Staff Pay: Changes to rates of National Living Wage and National Minimum Wage and 2023 consultations

    SI 2023/354: These Regulations are made to amend the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015, SI 2015/621. They come into force on 1 April 2023 and increase:

    • the rate of the national living wage for workers who are aged 23 or over from £9.50 to £10.42 per hour
    • the rate of the national minimum wage for workers who are aged 21 or over (but not yet aged 23) from £9.18 to £10.18 per hour
    • the rate of the national minimum wage for workers who are aged 18 or over (but not yet aged 21) from £6.83 to £7.49 per hour
    • the rate of the national minimum wage for workers who are under the age of 18 from £4.81 to £5.28 per hour
    • the rate for apprentices within SI 2015/621, reg 5(1)(a) and (b) from £4.81 to £5.28 per hour
    • the accommodation offset amount which is applicable where any employer provides a worker with living accommodation from £8.70 to £9.10 for each day that accommodation is provided

    The Low Pay Commission (LPC) has published a consultation seeking views on the impact of National Living Wage (NLW) and National Minimum Wage (NMW) increases for 2024. The NLW is expected to rise to between £10.90 and £11.43 in 2024. The information gathered will be used to inform the LPC’s recommendations to the government in the Autumn. The consultation closes on 9 June 2023 at 11:45pm.

    See also our updated Facts and Figures for 2023

    Back to the top

    Whistleblowing: Government launches whistleblowing law review

    On 27 March 2023, the government published a press release confirming that they have launched a review of the whistleblowing framework. The press release states that the review will gather evidence on the effectiveness of the current whistleblowing regime in enabling workers to speak about wrongdoing and protect those who do so. The press release confirms that the evidence gathering stage of the review will end in Autumn 2023. The review will pursue views and evidence from whistleblowers, key charities, employers and regulators.

    Back to the top

    Immigration: Home Office publishes details of a new endorsement requirement for the Scale-up route

    The Home Office has updated its sponsor guidance in relation to the Scale-up route. Notably, it confirms that an ‘endorsing body pathway’ is being launched, on 13 April 2023, for prospective employer applicants who do not meet the sponsor licence eligibility requirements (eg ‘if their HMRC history is not long enough’). As an alternative, prospective sponsors will be able to obtain an endorsement from a Home Office-approved endorsing body and submit this with the licence application (which must be made no more than three months from the date of endorsement). The guidance confirms that the endorsement process will attract a fee, and further details will be published in due course. Other changes include a new Annex SC2, setting out the changes to the route from 12 April 2023, in line with the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules HC 1160.

    Back to the top

    Immigration: MAC Chair publishes letter regarding inquiry into Seasonal Worker visa

    The Chair of the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC), Professor Brian Bell, has published a letter written to the Minister of State for Immigration, Robert Jenrick, regarding an inquiry into the Seasonal Worker visa. The inquiry will consider the rules under which the scheme operates, the size and costs of the scheme, the potential for exploitation and poor labour market practice, evidence from international comparisons and the long-run need for such a scheme. Bell has also confirmed that MAC will be working with the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) during the inquiry.

    Back to the top

    Welfare: Glassdoor reveals survey findings on employee loneliness

    Glassdoor has published a blog with insights from its new study which surveyed 2,000 employees to understand the levels of employee loneliness in the UK. The blog reveals the impact of poor workplace social life and the importance of workplace friendships to retaining staff.

    Key findings include:

    • six in ten people with less than five years of work experience are lonely all or most of the time
    • only 51% of employees connect socially with colleagues at least once a month
    • 28% of workers under 35 would stay in a job they did not like if the workplace social life was good
    • 89% of workers believe feeling a sense of belonging with their company is vital to their overall workplace happiness
    • nearly 49% of workers say a good social life has a significant impact on their overall job satisfaction and mental health

    Common reasons for workplace loneliness include less in-person interaction with co-workers, inflexibility in the workplace, and a lack of focus on creating a sense of belonging or community by an employer.

    Glassdoor reveals that without a good workplace social life, workers are more likely to be less productive and engaged. They are also more likely to experience stress, anxiety and eventually burnout.


    Back to the top

    Disability: DWP publishes new review to increase work prospects of autistic people

    The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), supported by the autism charity Autistica, has launched a review, the Buckland Review of Autism Employment, to increase the employment prospects of autistic people. The review, which will be led by Sir Robert Buckland KC MP and start in May 2023, will consider how the government can support employers to recruit and retain autistic people and enjoy the benefits of a neurodiverse workforce. Recommendations for change will be made to the Secretary of State in September 2023.

    Back to the top

    Disability: Commons briefing highlights lowest rates of employment among disabled people are for those on autism spectrum

    The House of Commons has released a research briefing on autism, policy and services. The briefing sets out the Department for Work and Pensions’ annual set of statistics on the employment of disabled people, which reports that the lowest rates of employment among disabled people are those on the autism spectrum.

    In the 2020–21 financial year, 26.5% of disabled people on the autism spectrum were in employment, compared to 52.5% of all disabled people and 80.4% of non-disabled people in the same period. In 2016, the National Autistic Society reported that 77% of unemployed people with autism wanted to work.

    Back to the top

    Brexit: An update on the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

    Retained EU law is a concept created by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This Act took a ‘snapshot’ of EU law as it applied to the UK at the end of the Brexit transition period on 31 December 2020 and provided for it to continue to apply in domestic law. The Bill would automatically revoke, or ‘sunset’, most retained EU law at the end of 2023. This would not apply to retained EU law that is domestic primary legislation.

    Ministers and devolved authorities could exempt most (but not all) retained EU law from the sunset, and UK ministers (but not devolved authorities) could delay the sunset until 23 June 2026 at the latest for specific descriptions of retained EU law. Any retained EU law that still applied after the end of 2023 would be renamed as assimilated law. The Bill would give ministers and devolved authorities powers to restate, reproduce, revoke, replace or update retained EU law and assimilated law by statutory instrument.

    The Bill would also repeal the principle of supremacy of retained EU law from UK law at the end of 2023, although its effects could be reproduced by statutory instrument in relation to specific pieces of retained EU law. The Bill would also make changes to the way that courts could depart from retained EU case law.

    The Bill would change the way that some types of retained EU law can be modified. It would ‘downgrade’ retained direct EU legislation so that this could be amended by secondary legislation. It would also remove additional parliamentary scrutiny requirements that currently apply when modifying some types of EU-derived domestic secondary legislation.

    The government has published a ‘dashboard’ of retained EU law, although it acknowledges this is not a comprehensive catalogue of all retained EU law that may be in scope of the Bill. The dashboard is due to be updated regularly.

    Concerns have been raised throughout the Bill’s progress about the amount of retained EU law to be reviewed before the sunset deadline and whether some may end up being revoked inadvertently. In the Commons, MPs expressed concerns about the impact of large-scale and rapid changes to the statute book as a consequence of the Bill and have highlighted a lack of clarity about what retained EU law the government intends to keep, particularly in the areas of employment, environmental and consumer protections. They were also critical of a lack of parliamentary scrutiny of and input into the process of reforming retained EU law. However, the only amendments made to the Bill in the House of Commons were government amendments to clarify the Bill’s drafting.

    The Bill is now with the House of Lords. Five days of Committee proceedings—when a Bill is examined in detail—concluded on 8 March 2023.

    Over the five days, Peers put forward many amendments to the Bill on a range of subjects. Opposition peers were scathing in their comments on the Bill. For example, Baroness Ludford (LD), said the Bill was ‘pretty hopeless’ and accused the government of adopting a ‘slash and burn’ approach to legislative reform, with opposition amendments seeking to bring to it ‘some rationalisation and order’. For the government, Lord Callanan, said, on the contrary, a ‘significant minority’ of retained EU law was ‘legally inoperable’ and that it was ‘not good governance’ to subject it to ‘complex and unnecessary parliamentary processes’ before being able to remove it from the statute book. He added that the amendments, including those seeking to delay the sunset, would ‘hamper efforts to realise the opportunities the Bill presents’.

    The Bill has come out of Committee stage in the Lords with amendments, including the insertion of a new clause setting out exceptions to the sunset of REUL, and it seems likely that further amendments will be made at Report stage. It is noteworthy that at Second Reading in the Lords a significant number of Conservative peers spoke against the Bill. The level of opposition expressed by peers from all parties indicates that it may not be straightforward for the government to get the Bill into law. It seems likely that the government will need to accept at least some of the Lords’ amendments if it wishes to avoid a lengthy period of ‘ping pong’ between the Lords and the Commons.

    In contrast to the approach being taken in respect of much retained EU law, the House of Lords is, in parallel, scrutinising the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which would similarly revoke retained EU law relating to financial services, but contains developed provisions which enable the Treasury and financial services regulators to replace that EU Law with legislation designed specifically for UK markets.

    Report stage on the Bill—a further chance for the House of Lords to closely scrutinise elements of the Bill and make changes—began on 19 April 2023.

    Authors: David Mundy, Aaron Nelson, and Joanna Purkis at BDB Pitmans, for LexisNexis. 

    Back to the top

    Equality Act: EHRC respond to Minister’s request to clarify the definition of ‘sex’

    On 21 February 2023, the Minister for Women and Equalities, Kemi Badenoch, requested advice from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) regarding the definition of the protected characteristic of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010). EHRC have provided an initial response to the Minister’s request namely suggesting that the UK government carefully consider implications any change to the legislation could have.

    Further Information:

    If you would like any additional information, please contact Anne-Marie Pavitt or Sophie Banks on: hello@dixcartuk.com

  • Employment Law Case Review – February 2022

    A round-up of the most significant employment law cases to be published over the last month including a Covid-19 dismissal, worker status, business owner liability, fire and rehire injunction and misclassified worker’s right to holiday pay.

    COVID-19: Dismissal for refusing to be vaccinated was fair

    In Allette v Scarsdale Grange Nursing Home Ltd ET/1803699/2021 an employment tribunal has held that the summary dismissal of a care assistant employed in a nursing home for unreasonably refusing to be vaccinated against COVID-19 was fair.

    In the context of the state of the pandemic in January 2021, a small nursing home’s decision to make vaccination mandatory for staff who were providing close personal care to vulnerable residents was a reasonable management instruction. The care assistant’s refusal to be vaccinated due to concerns about the safety of the vaccine was not reasonable in circumstances where there had been a very recent outbreak and deaths of residents at the nursing home, the pandemic was growing nationally and there was widespread publicity and advice about vaccine safety.

    An employer’s instruction that an employee must be vaccinated, unless they have a reasonable excuse, interferes with the employee’s physical integrity in a manner capable of engaging Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The employer’s aims, of protecting the health and safety of the residents, staff and visitors to the care home during the pandemic and protecting itself against the increased likelihood of claims due to the withdrawal of insurance cover if staff members were unvaccinated, were legitimate.

    An unvaccinated staff member would pose a significant and unjustified interference with the Article 8 rights of the residents and the other staff and visitors to the home, such that the requirement for the care assistant to be vaccinated and the dismissal for unreasonably refusing vaccination was justified. Less draconian means could not have been used.

    It was within the range of reasonable responses for the employer to conclude that the refusal was due to scepticism of the vaccine and not due to religious beliefs, as had been raised at the disciplinary hearing. In the context of the recent outbreak and deaths at the nursing home, and the urgency with which measures to protect the vulnerable residents needed to be put in place, refusing to comply with the management instruction to be vaccinated amounted to gross misconduct and the dismissal was neither unfair nor wrongful.

    Worker Status: London cabbie also working through Mytaxi app was not a worker of the app-operator

    In Johnson v Transopco UK Ltd [2022] EAT 6, the EAT has upheld an employment tribunal’s decision that a taxi driver working through an app was not a worker, under section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

    Mr Johnson worked as a self-employed London black-cab driver. He also registered with Mytaxi, an app operated by Transopco UK Ltd (TUK). During one year, he completed 282 trips via the app at a total value of £4,560.48. In the same period, he earned £30,472.45 as a self-employed driver. Employment tribunal complaints brought against TUK failed because the tribunal found Mr Johnson was not TUK’s worker. The tribunal observed that Mr Johnson could provide his services as infrequently or as often as he wanted, could dictate the timing of those services and was not subject to control by TUK. It also took into account the small proportion of work done through the app.

    The EAT held that the tribunal was entitled to analyse the split of time between income earned as a self-employed cab driver and income earned via the Mytaxi app, when considering whether Mr Johnson’s work for TUK formed part of his own business, and as pointing towards its conclusion that this was not a dependent work relationship. It was not the case that the tribunal’s analysis amounted to a “numbers game” or introduced a minimum hours threshold for worker status.

    The tribunal was entitled to take the view that the essence of Mr Johnson’s business was picking up passengers and driving them to where they wanted to go, however they were obtained. This was so having regard also to the tribunal’s findings on the simultaneous nature of the activities, subordination, dependency, control and integration.

    The fact that some incentives and risk-sharing were offered by TUK to reflect the risks associated with using its platform (such as the risk of fraud or cancelled jobs), in order to enhance its financial attractiveness as an option, this did not point inevitably to worker status and the tribunal did not err in holding otherwise. The tribunal’s conclusions were soundly reasoned. It followed that although the driver had an obligation of personal service, the tribunal had correctly concluded that TUK was a client or customer of Mr Johnson’s taxi-driving business.

    Liability: Dental practice owner liable for alleged negligence of self-employed dentists

    In Hughes v Rattan [2022] EWCA Civ 107, the Court of Appeal has held, as a preliminary issue, that a dental practice owner owed a patient a non-delegable duty of care in respect of the treatment she received from self-employed dentists who worked at the practice.

    Non-delegable duties put primary liability on a person to avoid harm, to take reasonable care to avoid harm or to see that care is taken by others, rather than imposing secondary liability for the wrongdoing of another person, as with vicarious liability.   While the two are conceptually distinct from each other, they may achieve a similar outcome and liability can arise as a result of negligence of an independent contractor, but with a non-delegable duty there is no defence to show that performance was delegated to a person reasonably believed to be competent.

    Ms Hughes was, in law, a patient of the practice and the dental practice owner, Dr Rattan, was named as the treatment provider in the treatment plans she had signed. Patients were described as “patients of the practice” in the agreements between the practice owner and the self-employed dentists, and the dentists were subject to stringent restrictive covenants prohibiting them from treating those patients outside the dental practice.

    The factors set out in the leading case, Woodland v Essex County Council [2013] UKSC 66, were satisfied:

    1. A “patient” included anyone receiving treatment from a dentist; they did not need to be especially vulnerable to qualify.

    2. An antecedent relationship between the patient and the dental practice owner was established at the latest on each occasion when the patient signed the relevant treatment plan, which placed her in the practice owner’s actual care.

    3. The patient had no control over whether the dental practice owner chose to perform his obligations personally or through employees or third parties.

    Although the court was not required to decide whether the dental practice owner was also vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of the self-employed dentists, it expressed a view that he would not be vicariously liable because the test in Barclays Bank Plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13 was not met.

    Contracts: High Court grants in junction to stop Tesco firing and rehiring employees

    In USDAW and others v Tesco Stores Ltd [2022] EWHC 201 (QB), the High Court has granted an injunction to restrain Tesco from terminating and re-engaging a group of warehouse operatives in order to remove a contractual entitlement to enhanced pay, which had been incorporated as a result of collective bargaining. The entitlement had been negotiated as a retention incentive at a time when Tesco was reorganising its distribution centres, which involved some major relocations. A collective agreement reached in 2010 stated that the enhanced pay would be a “permanent feature” of each affected employee’s contractual entitlement, and could only be changed through mutual consent, or on promotion to a new role.

    In these unusual circumstances, the court granted declaratory relief, setting out the precise contractual term relating to enhanced pay that was incorporated into the contracts of employment, and held that it was appropriate to imply a term preventing Tesco from exercising its right to terminate on notice for the purpose of removing or diminishing the right of each employee to receive the enhanced pay. The court noted that Tesco’s intention to terminate and re-engage on inferior terms would operate to remove a significant proportion of the remuneration currently payable to the affected employees, causing significant injury to their legal rights. Since damages would not have provided an adequate remedy, the court granted an injunction to restrain dismissal in breach of the implied term.  

    Holiday Pay: Misclassified worker’s right to holiday pay for whole period of employment crystallised on termination

    In Smith v Pimlico Plumbers Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 70, the Court of Appeal has held that a worker who took unpaid leave, having been wrongly told that he was an independent contractor with no right to paid leave, could bring a claim in respect of his entire accrued holiday entitlement under Article 7(1) of the Working Time Directive (2003/88/EC), whether taken or untaken, going back to the start of his contract.

    Following the principle in King v Sash Window Workshop Ltd (Case C-214/16), annual leave under the Directive is a “single composite right” to paid leave, rather than a right to leave and a separate right to payment for that leave. As the employer had refused to grant that right, the worker’s full leave entitlement under the Directive accumulated from year to year without limitation, and his right to claim a payment in lieu of that entitlement crystallised on termination of his contract. He did not need to rely on establishing a “series of deductions” under section 23(3) of the ERA 1996, and the time limit for bringing the claim ran from the date of termination, rather than the date of the last non-payment of holiday pay. It was also not necessary for the worker to specify whether the leave in question was untaken or taken but unpaid.

    Although the court did not strictly need to deal with this point, it also expressed a “strong provisional view” that the EAT’s decision in Bear Scotland Ltd v Fulton [2015] ICR 221, that a series of deductions is broken by a gap of three months or more between deductions, was wrong.

    A few days later the Court of Appeal added a postscript and an appendix.

    The earlier judgment of the EAT had included suggested wording to be read into the Working Time Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/1833) (WTR 1998) in order to reflect holiday pay case law under the Working Time Directive (2003/88/EC), including King v Sash Window Workshop and another (C-214/16) EU:C:2017:914. In light of the Court of Appeal’s decision that the EAT had wrongly interpreted King, it invited further submissions from the parties as to the appropriate course to adopt.

    Although the court acknowledged that it had “no power to draft regulations” it suggested a form of words that would best reflect EU law, as an appendix to its earlier judgment. It includes the following additional wording to be read into the WTR 1998 at regulation 13(16):

    “Where in any leave year an employer (i) fails to recognise a worker’s right to paid annual leave and (ii) cannot show that it provides a facility for the taking of such leave, the worker shall be entitled to carry forward any leave which is taken but unpaid, and/or which is not taken, into subsequent leave years.”

    The case has important implications for the way time limits work in holiday pay claims, particularly for workers who have been misclassified as self-employed and therefore denied any paid holiday rights. Such workers may now be able to claim holiday pay back to the start of their employment, without having to rely on the “series of deductions” rules which would otherwise limit the value of historical claims.

    Further Information:

    If you would like any additional information, please contact Anne-Marie Pavitt or Sophie Banks on: hello@dixcartuk.com