1,315 words, 7 minutes read time.
2024 has been a significant year for employment law in the UK. Key cases have shaped the landscape for workers and their rights. This review explores the benefits and disadvantages of these rulings, focusing on their impact on employees.
Uber BV v Aslam and Others
The ongoing gig economy debate saw another important development this year. The Supreme Court reaffirmed its decision that Uber drivers are workers, not independent contractors. This classification grants them entitlements such as minimum wage, holiday pay, and protection against discrimination.
Benefits: This ruling strengthens the rights of gig workers, offering them a safety net. For Uber drivers, it means better financial stability and fairer treatment.
Disadvantages: Some drivers expressed concern over losing flexibility. Uber responded by adjusting its app policies, which some say makes their work more rigid. The ruling could also push gig companies to automate roles, potentially reducing opportunities.
Forstater v CGD Europe
Maya Forstater’s case clarified protections for workers with gender-critical beliefs. The Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that her beliefs fall under the Equality Act 2010.
Benefits: Employees can now feel more secure expressing lawful beliefs without fear of unfair dismissal. This case sets a precedent for freedom of thought in the workplace.
Disadvantages: Critics argue that this could create conflicts at work. Employers may struggle to balance the rights of different groups.
Kostal UK Ltd v Dunkley
This case examined collective bargaining rights. Kostal attempted to bypass union negotiations by offering deals directly to employees. The Supreme Court ruled this unlawful.
Benefits: This decision strengthens collective bargaining. It ensures that unions cannot be undermined by direct offers from employers.
Disadvantages: Some argue this could delay agreements in urgent situations. Employers might also view unions less favourably, impacting industrial relations.
Higgs v Farmor’s School
Kristie Higgs was dismissed for social media posts opposing LGBT+ education policies. The Court of Appeal ruled her dismissal lawful, citing reputational risk to the school.
Judgment Date: 16 June 2023 (Employment Appeal Tribunal); heard by the Court of Appeal on 2-3 October 2024)
Benefits: This case underscores the importance of considering workplace culture and public perception. It highlights the need for clear social media policies.
Disadvantages: Some employees feel this limits their freedom of expression. The case raises questions about where personal beliefs intersect with professional responsibilities.
Mercer v Alternative Future Group
This case addressed the right to trade union representation. A care worker faced disciplinary action without union representation. The Employment Tribunal ruled in her favour.
Benefits: The ruling reaffirms the importance of union representation. It empowers workers to seek support during disputes.
Disadvantages: Employers may view unionised staff as more challenging. This could impact hiring decisions or workplace dynamics.
Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Mercer
Judgment Date: 17 April 2024
The Supreme Court decided that under current legislation, workers have no protection against being subjected to a detriment for taking part in industrial action. As a result, the legislation was held incompatible with Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to freedom of association).
Benefits: This case highlights gaps in protection for striking workers and signals a need for legislative reform.
Disadvantages: Until laws are updated, workers may feel vulnerable when engaging in industrial action.
Rentokil Initial UK Ltd v Miller
Judgment Date: 2024
An employer was found to have failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments by not offering a disabled employee a trial period in a different role, when he was no longer able to continue in his original role due to the effects of his disability.
Benefits: This case reinforces the duty of employers to provide reasonable adjustments, ensuring fair treatment for disabled employees.
Disadvantages: Employers may find it challenging to accommodate such adjustments, especially in smaller organisations.
Individual Liability for Discrimination – Baldwin v Cleves School
Judgment Date: 2024
The EAT decided that when an employer was held vicariously liable for the discriminatory acts of two employees, who were both named as respondents in the claim, those individuals were also personally liable for the discrimination.
Benefits: This decision holds individuals accountable for discriminatory acts, promoting personal responsibility.
Disadvantages: It may increase workplace tensions and lead to additional legal disputes involving individual employees.
Detriment After Whistleblowing – First Greater Western Ltd v Moussa
Judgment Date: 2024
The EAT held that the employer had victimised the employee and subjected him to a detriment (by subjecting him to disciplinary proceedings) for making protected disclosures six years previously.
Benefits: This case underscores the long-term protections available for whistleblowers, encouraging transparency.
Disadvantages: Employers may face difficulties addressing historical issues related to whistleblowing.
National Minimum Wage and Travel Time – Taylors Service Ltd v HMRC
Judgment Date: 2024
The EAT held that time spent travelling to and from clients’ premises, sometimes for up to eight hours per day, was not considered ‘time work’ under the NMW Regulations, meaning workers were not entitled to be paid the NMW for this time.
Benefits: Provides clarity on the interpretation of the NMW Regulations for employers.
Disadvantages: Workers who spend significant time travelling may feel undervalued and underpaid.
Indirect Discrimination: British Airways plc v Rollett and Others
Judgment Date: 26 May 2024
The EAT confirmed that claimants who do not share a relevant protected characteristic, but who share the same disadvantage as those with that protected characteristic, are entitled to bring a claim for indirect discrimination.
Benefits: This ruling broadens the scope of indirect discrimination claims, promoting fairness for all employees.
Disadvantages: It may increase the complexity of managing workplace policies and adjustments.
Dismissal and Re-engagement – Tesco Stores Ltd v USDAW
Judgment Date: 15 June 2024
The Supreme Court upheld an injunction to prevent Tesco from ‘firing and rehiring’ a group of employees in order to remove a contractual entitlement to enhanced pay. The Court decided that as the payment was a ‘permanent’ entitlement, Tesco could not terminate the employees’ contracts with the purpose of removing it.
Benefits: This case affirms protections for long-standing contractual entitlements, boosting worker security.
Disadvantages: Employers may find it harder to adjust contracts in response to business needs.
Sex-Related Harassment – British Bung Manufacturing Company Ltd v Finn
Judgment Date: 15 November 2024
An offensive comment made about a man’s baldness by a colleague amounted to sex-related harassment, since it was inherently related to the claimant’s sex.
Benefits: This case sets a precedent for recognising less obvious forms of harassment, improving workplace respect.
Disadvantages: It may lead to heightened sensitivity and potential conflicts in some workplaces.
Pre-Termination Negotiations – Gallagher v McKinnon’s Auto and Tyres Ltd
Judgment Date: 2024
The employer, who told an employee during a ‘pre-termination negotiation’ that a formal redundancy process would be commenced if he did not accept an enhanced redundancy package, had not behaved ‘improperly’ or placed undue pressure on the employee.
Benefits: This case provides clarity on what constitutes improper behaviour during pre-termination negotiations.
Disadvantages: Employees may feel coerced even if legal thresholds for impropriety are not met.
Redundancy Consultation – De Bank Haycocks v ADP RPO UK Ltd
Judgment Date: 2024
The Court of Appeal decided that for small-scale redundancies (affecting fewer than 20 employees), it is not a requirement for employers to conduct general workforce consultation in addition to individual consultation. Consultation must take place at a ‘formative stage’ but this does not have to happen at workforce level.
Benefits: Clarifies the requirements for consultation in small-scale redundancies, reducing administrative burdens on employers.
Disadvantages: Workers may feel less represented in redundancy processes.
Looking Ahead
These cases show a complex picture. Some rulings empower workers, offering greater rights and protections. Others highlight tensions between individual beliefs and collective workplace harmony.
The balance between employer needs and worker rights remains delicate. For workers, being informed is key. Understanding these cases equips them to better advocate for their rights. At Solidarity, we continue to fight for fair treatment for all. 2024 has proven that vigilance and unity are as important as ever.
By Pat Harrington