header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
07 June 2018 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7796 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 7 June 2018

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll