Temporary agency work

July 7th, 2016 by James Goudie QC

Article 1 of Directive 2008/104/EC on Temporary Agency Work defines its scope. Two concepts that are involved are “worker” and “economic activity”.  Both have been considered in an Advocate General’s Opinion on 6 July 2016 in Case C-216/15, Betriebsrat der Ruhrlandklinik v Ruhrlandklinik.

Article 1 of the Directive provides that the Directive applies to “workers” with a contract of employment or employment relationship with a temporary-work agency who are assigned to user undertakings to work temporarily under their supervision and direction. It applies to public and private undertakings which are temporary-work agencies or user undertakings engaged in “economic activities” whether or not they are operating for gain. Read more »


Brexit and the Future of Data Protection

June 24th, 2016 by Anya Proops QC

As we all reel in shock at today’s news, thoughts will inevitably turn to how our impending divorce from Europe will impact on the sphere of data protection. Our own data protection laws have of course been profoundly shaped by Europe. Until yesterday, many had assumed that Europe’s control over our data protection laws would in due course become even more intensive, as we journeyed into a world in which the EU Data Protection Regulation reigned supreme across Europe. However, the clocks have stopped. The Regulation is not to become law in the UK. The future of data protection law is therefore necessarily shrouded in mystery.
Read more »



June 15th, 2016 by James Goudie QC

In McBride v Scottish Police Authority [2016] UKSC 27 the Supreme Court has considered the remedy for unfair dismissal of reinstatement, which must of course be contrasted with the remedy of re-engagement.  An ET has no power to order reinstatement in terms which alter the contractual terms of the complainant’s employment.  The question was whether that is what the ET had purported to do in this case.  The Supreme Court held that it had not.

The appeal arose from the scandal over the disputed identification of a fingerprint in a murder inquiry. A fingerprint at the murder scene was identified by four experts from the Scottish Criminal Records Office fingerprint bureau as belonging to DC McKie. As a result of the identification, DC McKie was charged with perjury for giving evidence that she had never been to the crime scene. During DC McKie’s trial differences of opinion emerged about the fingerprint identification and she was acquitted.

Read more »


Employees, Confidential Information and Data Protection

June 3rd, 2016 by Christopher Knight

Employment lawyers have tended to see data protection as an employee weapon; in particular the strategic fishing expedition subject access request as a precursor to High Court or Tribunal claims. But there is at least one angle from which the DPA can be used as a weapon of attack by employers against former employees. Where an employee leaves their employer and takes a client list with him, not only will he be in breach of the usual restrictive covenants he is likely to have, but he may also have committed a criminal offence under section 55 DPA. Read more »


Court interpreters are not ‘employees’

May 12th, 2016 by Claire Halas

Today, in the case of Secretary of State for Justice v. Windle and Arada [2016] EWCA Civ 459, the Court of Appeal (Underhill LJ giving judgment) decided that Court and Tribunal interpreters are not employees for the purposes of pursuing claims under the Equality Act 2010. In doing so, the Court overturned a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (presided over by HHJ Peter Clark) [2015] ICR 156, and restored the judgment of the Leeds Employment Tribunal.

The case concerned professional interpreters working for the Courts and Tribunals on multiple engagements, with no overriding or ‘umbrella’ contract of employment. The appeal was concerned with whether the professional interpreters could be classified as ‘employees’ for Equality Act purposes for each engagement. The appeal turned on a narrow question: whether an employment tribunal could take into account the fact that in between assignments there was an ‘absence of mutuality of obligations’. The EAT had held that this was impermissible.

Lord Justice Underhill allowed the appeal, stating that when determining the employment status of an individual it is ‘necessary to consider all the circumstances’: see §23. Excluding consideration of the absence of mutuality between engagements ‘in limine runs counter to the repeated message of the authorities that it is necessary to consider all the circumstances.’

Furthermore, Underhill LJ explained at §23, ‘It seems to me a matter of common sense and common experience that the fact that a person supplying services is only doing so on an assignment-by-assignment basis may tend to indicate a degree of independence, or lack of subordination, in the relationship while at work which is incompatible with employee status even in the extended sense.’

The same point had been made by Elias LJ in Quashie v. Stringfellows Restaurant Ltd. [2012] EWCA Civ 1735, in respect of employment status for unfair dismissal claims. Underhill LJ explained that there was no reason to apply a different approach when looking at the question of employment status in ‘the extended sense’ under the Equality Act.

Clive Sheldon QC of 11KBW represented the Secretary of State for Justice on the appeal.

Click here to read judgment


Whistleblowing: interim relief

March 7th, 2016 by James Goudie QC

In Parsons v Airplus International Ltd, UKEAT/0023/16/JO, Ms Parsons claimed that she had been dismissed for whistleblowing. She applied for interim relief under Section 128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.  If, on the hearing of such an application, it appears to the ET that it is likely that on determining the complaint  the Tribunal will find in favour of the Claimant, the Tribunal must make an Order for interim relief.  For many years it has been understood that in applying this provision the ET must ask itself whether the Claimant has established that she has a “pretty good chance” of succeeding at the substantive hearing.  This interpretation, says Judge Shanks, is justified, because if the employee satisfies the test the ET must make an Order for interim relief and, if it does so, the employer is obliged to pay the employee pending the determination of the complaint and there is no provision for re-payment in the event that she ultimately fails on the merits. Read more »


After Cavendish Square/ParkingEye, is it more or less likely to be a penalty?

November 23rd, 2015 by Julian Wilson

Reports of the decision of the Supreme Court in the joined appeals in Cavendish Square and ParkingEye left me confused because some reckoned the decision represented a narrowing of the application of the penalty doctrine whilst others considered it had expanded the doctrine’s scope. So on a wet weekend afternoon I took hold of a copy of the Judgment – [2015] UKSC 67- and tasked myself to find out. Here is what I found. Read more »


When is travelling time working time? And when does working time not earn the minimum wage?

September 14th, 2015 by Harini Iyengar

The European Court of Justice (“the ECJ”) has now given judgment in Federacion de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones obreras v Tyco Integrated Security Case C-266/14 consistent with the Advocate General’s opinion, on which James Goudie QC blogged recently. For peripatetic or mobile workers (who do not have a fixed or habitual workplace) time spent travelling from home to the first appointment and from the last appointment back home counts as working time under EU law. The judgment has very significant implications for employers whose workforce includes, for example, home care staff, gas fitters, and sales teams. Read more »


Petter v EMC: Employment Share Schemes, Choice of Forum and Anti –Suit Injunctions – did the CA take a step too far?

August 13th, 2015 by Julian Wilson

In granting the anti-suit injunction against EMC Corporation in Petter v (1) EMC Europe Limited (2) EMC Corporation [2015] EWCA Civ 828, the CA considered that it was upholding the policy in section 5 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 for the protection of employees from being sued other than in the courts of their domicile. But was it exceeding the limits of its jurisdiction to regulate the lawful conduct of foreigners, and interfering in the process of justice in the court of a friendly foreign state? Read more »


Peripatetic workers

June 15th, 2015 by James Goudie QC

Spanish employers refused to count as “working time” within the meaning of the Working Time Directive the time that their employees spend each day travelling from home to their first customer and from their last customer to their home. In an Opinion delivered on 11 June 2015, in Case C-266/14, Advocate General Bot has advised that the Directive should be interpreted as meaning that the time that peripatetic workers, that is to say workers who are not assigned to a fixed or habitual place of work, spend travelling from home to the first customer designated by their employer and from the last customer designated by their employer to their homes constitutes “working time”. Read more »