Welcome to August's employment law newsletter
The past 30 days have provided much for the employment law world to write about, starting with the success of 3PB’s Mathew Gullick QC, Lachlan Wilson and Naomi Webber in the Supreme Court in The Harper Trust v Brazel case; and Mathew Gullick QC earning the accolade of the Times’ “Lawyer of the Week” in the process.
Our news section highlights new guidance issued by the government on worker status as well as the proposed Tipping Bill (which could potentially benefit millions of employees across the hospitality and leisure sectors). We also flag the government’s intention to introduce new legislation intended to curb the impact of industrial action; and within that context we refer our readers to head of group Craig Ludlow’s recent analysis of the current ability of trade unions to call industrial action.
Case law analysis is provided by our group as follows:
Our successful team in the Supreme Court - Mathew Gullick QC, Lachlan Wilson and Naomi Webber – provide an analysis of their landmark case The Harpur Trust v Brazel.
Naomi Webber reviews Basfar v Wong, a case that looks at modern slavery and diplomatic immunity.
Daniel Brown provides a summary of the ET's judgment in Forstater v CGD Europe & Others (case number 2200909/2019).
Andrew MacPhail reviews Mr D MacKereth v DWP & Or, including the issue of causation in the context of manifestation of religion or belief.
Jo Laxton analyses Ineos Infrastructure Grangemouth Ltd v Jones and others and Ineos Chemicals Grangemouth Ltd v Arnott and others, a case concerned with the aims of S145B TULRCA.
Alex Leonhardt summarises Hanson Quarry Products v Luck, in which an employer stopped payment to an “unwilling” employee.
Mathew Gullick QC named as Lawyer of the Week by The Times
3PB's Mathew Gullick QC has been named as Lawyer of the Week by The Times, following the landmark judgment in favour of his client Mrs Lesley Brazel by the UK Supreme Court.
Part-time music teacher wins landmark case on calculating holiday pay for ‘part-year’ workers
3PB barristers Mathew Gullick QC, Lachlan Wilson and Naomi Webber saw earlier this month a landmark judgment in favour of their music teacher client Mrs Lesley Brazel by the UK Supreme Court.
The UK's highest court confirmed the rights of part-year and zero hours contract workers to the full 5.6 weeks' statutory paid holiday provided for under
the Working Time Regulations 1998 and rejected the argument of the school that the entitlement of such workers should be reduced on a pro-rata basis.
Government brings out new guidance on employment status
Following the Supreme Court's landmark ruling which found that Uber drivers were workers, the government has launched new guidance on employment status.
Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill passes 2nd reading in Parliament
Set to benefit more than 2 million workers across the hospitality, leisure and services sectors, the Tipping Bill aims to ensure that all tips go to staff by making it unlawful for businesses to hold back service charges from their employees.
Government seeks to curb the impact of industrial action
The government is preparing to introduce new legislation aimed at curbing the effectiveness of strike actions; within that context we refer readers to Craig Ludlow's recent analysis of trade unions' existing ability to call industrial action (click here for Craig’s analysis).
Supreme Court confirms holiday pay rights for part-year workers
Mathew Gullick QC, Lachlan Wilson and Naomi Webber provide a summary and analysis of The Harpur Trust v Brazel, and highlight unresolved issues following the landmark case in which the Supreme Court ruled in favour of their client, Mrs Brazel.
When exploitation amounts to a ‘commercial activity’: modern slavery and diplomatic immunity
Naomi Webber analyses Basfar v Wong  UKSC 20, a case which establishes that diplomatic immunity cannot be relied on in cases of modern slavery.
Forstater v CGD Europe & Others – ET upholds gender critical belief discrimination claim
Daniel Brown summarises the ET's judgment in Forstater v CGD Europe & Others (case number 2200909/2019), sent to parties on 6 July.
Manifestation of religion or belief / causation
Andrew MacPhail reviews Mr D MacKereth v DWP & Or  EAT 99, highlighting the EAT’s analysis of whether conduct in manifestation of someone’s religion or belief falls to be treated as separable from the underlying protected characteristic for the purposes of a direct discrimination claim.
Pay increase was an unlawful inducement
Joanna Laxton reviews Ineos Infrastructure Grangemouth Ltd v Jones and others and Ineos Chemicals Grangemouth Ltd v Arnott and others  EAT 82, in which an employer cannot designate the end of pay negotiations of its own volition, as to do so would undermine the aims of S145B TULRCA.
Employers stopping payment to an “unwilling” employee may be digging themselves a hole
Alex Leonhardt reviews Hanson Quarry Products v Luck  EAT 98, a case highlighting that
(a) employers should be cautious of stopping payment on the basis of an employee’s refusal to work that is implied rather than express and
(b) that not all breaches by an employee that prevent them from being able to work will give rise to an entitlement on the part of the employer to stop payment.
Meet the team
3PB’s employment law group offers expert advisory and advocacy services to private and public sector employers across all areas of employment law including unfair dismissal, discrimination, equal pay, industrial disputes, executive contracts, wrongful dismissals, restrictive covenants, whistleblowing, TUPE, injunctions, pensions disputes and disciplinary proceedings.