HR Articles

Over the last two years, there has been a steady stream of high-profile employment rights claims by individuals working in the gig economy (for Uber, Citysprint, Deliveroo, Hermes and many others).

As reported previously, in April this year the apprenticeship levy came into force. This introduced a 0.5% levy on employers with payrolls over £3million. The aim is to raise £3bn annually for four years to fund apprenticeship places.

The Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) has finally given its decision on whether a particular group of Deliveroo riders - those in the Camden/Kentish Town area of North London who are paid per delivery - are workers of Deliveroo or are independent suppliers of services to Deliveroo.

In another important ruling relating to the gig economy, London Central Tribunal has held that drivers of Addison Lee are not self-employed, but are in fact workers.

In the case of Tree v South East Coastal Services Ambulance NHS Trust, the EAT held that a Tribunal cannot make a deposit order merely because the Claimant’s case is unclear.

Unlike ordinary unfair dismissal claims, there is no cap on damages for loss of earnings in a whistle-blowing claim.

The Taylor Review offers clear guidance in this current climate of uncertainty: employers need flexible and agile workers, and in reality there are a variety of work arrangements that suit both the individuals and business.

The Trades Union Congress (TUC) recently published a report on ‘insecure work’.

Following parliamentary pressure, the takeaway delivery company Deliveroo has removed a controversial clause within its “supplier agreement” that sought to prevent couriers from challenging their self-employed status at an employment tribunal.

The BBC reported this week that an increasing number of Indian restaurants in Scotland were closing due to strict immigration rules which are preventing restaurants from recruiting top chefs from India.