In Grange v Abellio London Ltd  UKEAT 0130_16_1611 the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that a claim for failure to provide rest breaks under the Working Time Regulations 1998 can be brought if an employer fails to make provision for breaks, even if no express request is made. Employers must proactively ensure that working arrangements accommodate rest breaks, although workers cannot be forced to take them if they do not wish to.
Guidance has been issued by the President of the Employment Tribunals (England and Wales) setting out a new way that parties can settle tribunal claims. The process is free, optional, confidential and impartial. It is hoped that it may shorten and simplify the scope of hearings.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has considered whether it is a policy as a whole, or the application of a policy to the individual, which needs to be justified under s.15 Equality Act 2010. Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 provides that a person discriminates against a disabled person if it treats the disabled person unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of its disability and the treatment cannot be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
The London Central Employment Tribunal has held that two of Uber’s drivers are ‘workers’ and not self-employed individuals in the case of Aslam and ors v Uber BV and ors. This is a landmark ruling particularly for individuals working on short-term assignments or temporary work (the so-called ‘gig economy’). There are 30,000 Uber drivers operating in London and 40,000 in the UK who no doubt will be affected by this decision.