Supreme Court set for long-awaited Uber employment rights judgement
On Friday the Supreme Court will hand down its judgement in a long-running case over Uber drivers employment rights. (Getty Images)
On Friday the Supreme Court will hand down its judgement as to whether Uber has been successful in its appeal against a ruling recognising its drivers as workers, not independent contractors.
The long-running dispute, which has been bouncing through the courts since back in 2016, could have sizeable implications for the future of the gig economy.
What’s at stake?
Back in 2016, two former Uber drivers brought a case against the transport tech giant to the employment tribunal seeking drivers to be designated as “workers”.
An employment tribunal did not have jurisdiction to grant interim relief (continued employment until the case is decided) to a claimant who alleged their dismissal amounted to unlawful discrimination. The case is expected to be heard by the court of appeal, which will consider whether to issue a declaration of incompatibility between UK law and the European Convention on Human Rights.
EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY FOR ACTS OF EMPLOYEES
Employers can be held liable for harassment committed by their employees under Section 109(1) of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA). It is irrelevant whether the employer was aware of or approved of the conduct of the employee in question. In
Allay v Gehlen, the claimant, Mr. Gehlen, who described himself as being “of Indian origin,” brought a complaint that he had been subjected to harassment on the grounds of race by a colleague during the course of his employment. The question considered by the EAT was not whether the harassment had taken place (this was clearly established) but instead whether the employer could avoid liability for the harassment conducted by one of its employees by satisfying the applicable statutory defence. Section 109(4) EqA provides a defence for an employer where it can show that it took all reasonable steps to prevent the employee(s) in question from doing the act(s) alleged to have taken place in the course of
3 Min Read
LONDON (Reuters) - A lawyer representing the Kuwait Investment Authority’s London office has told an employment tribunal that the fund should be covered by diplomatic immunity in a legal wrangle involving former staff who accuse it of victimisation.
Former fixed income head Simon Hard and another former staff member are pursuing an employment tribunal case against the Kuwait Investment Office (KIO), part of one of the world’s largest sovereign wealth funds, for alleged victimisation, discrimination and so-called whistleblowing detriment.
The former employees are themselves being sued by the fund over an alleged conspiracy to award unlawful pay rises, which they deny, but the High Court in July granted them a stay of application in that case in order to allow them to go ahead with their employment tribunal.