header-logo header-logo

30 November 2017
Issue: 7772 / Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-detail

Another window closes on gig economy

The courts have struck another blow to the gig economy, in a ruling on unpaid holiday pay.

Handing down judgment in King v The Sash Window Workshop Ltd & Richard Dollar (Case C‑214/16), this week, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that a worker does not have to take unpaid leave in order to later claim that he should have received holiday pay.

The case, which was referred to the Luxembourg court by the Court of Appeal, is likely to have an impact on ‘gig economy’ workers or those who have been wrongly classified as self-employed, lawyers say.

King was hired as a windows salesman on a self-employed basis by Sash Window Workshop from 1999 until he retired in 2012. From 2000 onwards, he took unpaid leave of three to four weeks each year. Once he retired, he raised a claim for unpaid holiday pay for the whole 13 years on the basis he was a worker and therefore entitled to holidays under the Working Time Regulations 1998 (WTR). The question of whether he was entitled to payment for holiday accrued but not taken was one of the questions referred to the ECJ.

Clare Gilroy-Scott, partner at Goodman Derrick, who represents King, said: ‘This case is of importance in clarifying that workers who are denied their entitlement under the Working Time Regulations to paid annual leave do not have to take a period of unpaid leave first before taking legal action to receive pay for that leave.

‘This would otherwise have left a worker (who was without protection from unfair dismissal and reliant upon continued work) with the unattractive prospect of having to suffer a detrimental impact on his remuneration by taking unpaid leave. The court has confirmed that a worker may carry over and make a claim for untaken leave entitlement on the termination of the engagement in these circumstances.’

James Williams, barrister at Henderson Chambers, who represents King, said the decision would be ‘of great significance to many workers wrongly categorised by their employers as self-employed.

‘In the short term they should now be able to bring, on termination of their engagement, a claim for all the holiday pay that they should have been paid during the working relationship. In the longer term, the decision should reduce the financial incentive for employers to deny that their staff are entitled to holiday pay—since if the employer gets this wrong, it must compensate the worker accordingly.

‘This means that companies who deliberately categorise their staff as self-employed to deny them basic employment rights should no longer gain such a significant competitive advantage.’

Issue: 7772 / Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Maryam Syed KC, Church Court Chambers

NLJ Career Profile: Maryam Syed KC, Church Court Chambers

From childhood dreams of the Bar to some of the country's most challenging cases, Maryam Syed KC explains why she has never stopped standing up for others

DAC Beachcroft—Richard Breavington, Rachel Ford & Daniel Guilfoyle

DAC Beachcroft—Richard Breavington, Rachel Ford & Daniel Guilfoyle

DAC Beachcroft significantly expands Cyber team, hiring three Cyber partners

Browne Jacobson—Professor Clive Kay

Browne Jacobson—Professor Clive Kay

Browne Jacobson appoints senior healthcare leader Professor Clive Kay as strategic adviser

NEWS
As family justice moves further away from the courtroom, collaborative law is emerging as an increasingly important route to resolving separation disputes
A busy period for employment law is producing important lessons for employers, employees and tribunals alike
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll