header-logo header-logo

07 June 2018 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7796 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 7 June 2018

nlj_7796_iansmith

Ian Smith tackles ‘no oral variations’ clauses, zero-hour contracts & who qualifies as a ‘worker’

  • Cycle courier qualifies as a ‘worker’.
  • Zero-hours part-timer can claim a valid comparison.
  • ‘No oral variation’ clauses effective; effect on ‘entire agreement’ clauses.

In a month when we have all been assailed by frantic emails from all sorts of weird and wonderful organisations wanting to stay our best friends after the GDPR came into force (the usual response of most of us being a maniacal laugh and an audible ‘you must be joking’), the one point of primary importance for employment lawyers about the new Regulation is that the view of the Information Commissioner’s Office is that it does not affect its long-standing Employment Practices Data Protection Code (see Harvey at s [1801]), which continues to apply and for which there are no current plans for replacement.

Turning to the case law this month, the three cases below all concern issues relating to contracts of employment – (1) the basic definition of a ‘worker’

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll