2016 was a busy year for important cases making their way through the employment tribunal system. Here are a few of the important cases from this year:
British Gas Trading Ltd v Lock and another
The Court of Appeal confirmed that commission should be included in the calculation for holiday pay, agreeing with earlier decisions. This decision requires employers to include individual results based commission in the holiday pay calculation for the first 4 weeks of annual leave. British Gas is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court and there are still some grey areas for employers when it comes to the actual calculation, such as the correct reference period for infrequent commission payments.
Aslam and others v Uber BV and others
Applying longstanding employment law principles to new systems of working, the employment tribunal decided that Uber drivers were not self-employed but were, in reality, workers. In effect, this grants the estimated 40,000 UK Uber drivers with basic employment rights such as minimum wage, working time rights and paid holiday. Uber has confirmed they have lodged an appeal against the decisions whilst other drivers are reportedly joining forces with unions to bring more claims against Uber.
Peninsula Business Services v Donaldson
A childcare voucher scheme deducted salary in return for vouchers but required joining employees to agree to suspend membership of the scheme during maternity leave. The Employment Appeal Tribunal confirmed these types of deducting schemes do not have to be paid for by the employer in addition to maternity pay during maternity leave as this will create a windfall for the employee. However, this is not the case where childcare vouchers are provided in addition to normal salary as employers will have to continue to provide these benefits during maternity leave.
G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Ltd v Powell
When moving a disabled employee to a lower role, the Employment Appeal Tribunal found that it can be a reasonable adjustment to protect pay at a higher rate on a long term basis. This will not be an everyday conclusion of this issue but the financial considerations of protecting pay will have to be balanced against enabling the employee to remain or return to work.
