The ET looked at some other areas of UK statutory employment law. Referring extensively to case law from the European Court of Justice, the ET concluded that it was open to EU member states to have different types and levels of employment rights and protections, but the purpose of the ARD was to preserve these, whatever they may be. This implied that the protected class was not limited to those with a contract of employment, but how exactly should that be defined?
The ET noted that the ARD was intended to protect anyone in an “employment relationship” – it refers to a transfer of rights and obligations “arising from a contract of employment or from an employment relationship existing on the date of a transfer”. TUPE itself has a different definition of an “employee”: “any individual who works for another person whether under a contract of service…or otherwise but does not include anyone who provides services under a contract for services”. The case concerned cycle couriers who claimed they automatically transferred from City Sprint to Revisecatch when the former lost and the latter won a contract with a client. In the decision, the ET considered the question of who was protected under the Acquired Rights Directive (“ARD”), the EU law which is implemented in the UK by TUPE - the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006.
Limb (b) then provides that someone who undertakes to perform services personally for a third party, which is not a client or customer of a profession or business undertaking operated by them, also counts as a “worker”. Limb (a) of the definition covers those working under a contract of employment (i.e. This refers to the definition of worker in section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”) and other similar employment legislation. More specifically, the ET’s decision concerns so-called “limb (b) workers”.
0 kommentar(er)
