header-logo header-logo

30 November 2017
Issue: 7772 / Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-detail

Another window closes on gig economy

The courts have struck another blow to the gig economy, in a ruling on unpaid holiday pay.

Handing down judgment in King v The Sash Window Workshop Ltd & Richard Dollar (Case C‑214/16), this week, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that a worker does not have to take unpaid leave in order to later claim that he should have received holiday pay.

The case, which was referred to the Luxembourg court by the Court of Appeal, is likely to have an impact on ‘gig economy’ workers or those who have been wrongly classified as self-employed, lawyers say.

King was hired as a windows salesman on a self-employed basis by Sash Window Workshop from 1999 until he retired in 2012. From 2000 onwards, he took unpaid leave of three to four weeks each year. Once he retired, he raised a claim for unpaid holiday pay for the whole 13 years on the basis he was a worker and therefore entitled to holidays under the Working Time Regulations 1998 (WTR). The question of whether he was entitled to payment for holiday accrued but not taken was one of the questions referred to the ECJ.

Clare Gilroy-Scott, partner at Goodman Derrick, who represents King, said: ‘This case is of importance in clarifying that workers who are denied their entitlement under the Working Time Regulations to paid annual leave do not have to take a period of unpaid leave first before taking legal action to receive pay for that leave.

‘This would otherwise have left a worker (who was without protection from unfair dismissal and reliant upon continued work) with the unattractive prospect of having to suffer a detrimental impact on his remuneration by taking unpaid leave. The court has confirmed that a worker may carry over and make a claim for untaken leave entitlement on the termination of the engagement in these circumstances.’

James Williams, barrister at Henderson Chambers, who represents King, said the decision would be ‘of great significance to many workers wrongly categorised by their employers as self-employed.

‘In the short term they should now be able to bring, on termination of their engagement, a claim for all the holiday pay that they should have been paid during the working relationship. In the longer term, the decision should reduce the financial incentive for employers to deny that their staff are entitled to holiday pay—since if the employer gets this wrong, it must compensate the worker accordingly.

‘This means that companies who deliberately categorise their staff as self-employed to deny them basic employment rights should no longer gain such a significant competitive advantage.’

Issue: 7772 / Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll