The Employment Appeal Tribunal has ruled that, where a worker has taken a period of unpaid holiday, they will not be entitled to a backdated payment for it (or any earlier periods) if they do not submit a claim within a three-month limitation period after the claim has arisen.(1) The European Court of Justice s (ECJ s) decision in
King v The Sash Window Workshop Ltd did not require a different approach.
Background
In 2017 in
King v The Sash Window Workshop Ltd, the ECJ ruled that where workers are not granted the paid holiday to which they are entitled under the EU Working Time Directive, they can carry over that right indefinitely until they have the opportunity to exercise it (for further details please see Workers denied paid holiday can carry over rights until termination ). When workers employment terminates, employers must pay them in lieu of the holiday that they did not take.
The private hire company will only be legally required to compensate those who have brought a claim.
Liana Wood, a solicitor in the employment team at Leigh Day, said: “This is a huge decision in favour of Addison Lee drivers and yet another blow to big firms operating in the gig economy.
“Leigh Day has been fighting for workers’ rights on behalf of our clients for several years, so I’m delighted that the end is now finally in sight for these hard-working drivers who deserve to be treated fairly.”
Wood hopes that other companies with similar business models to Uber and Addison Lee will change their employment terms and conditions.
Can Christians use their conscience in secular jobs?
For some public commentators on religion, the moral to the recent court judgment that went against ex-magistrate Richard Page is that taking religious zeal into one’s secular occupation does no favours for the Christian cause.
Comment David Shepherd
At the Court of Appeal, Richard Page’s legal team failed to overturn the Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment that upheld his sacking for forthrightly contradicting the assertion in the social worker’s report for a same-sex adoption case that same-sex couples make better adoptive parents than straight couples.
subscribe now
login
access code
Introduction
The Supreme Court has confirmed that retail staff of UK supermarket chain Asda can compare themselves to higher-paid distribution depot staff for the purposes of an equal pay claim.(1)
This is the latest stage in a long-running legal dispute. In 2014 more than 7,000 female Asda retail store workers brought claims in an employment tribunal arguing that they were entitled to equal pay with male distribution depot staff, on the basis that their work was of equal value to that of the distribution workers.
Legal framework
The Equality Act 2010 provides that men and women should receive equal pay for equal work. An employee can compare themselves to a comparator of the opposite sex who is performing work of equal value. The claimant and comparator must be in the same employment (ie, they must be employed by the same employer or associated employers).
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has held in Asda Stores Ltd v. Brierley and others that Asda supermarket retail employees can appoint Asda depot workers as their comparators in.