Taylor review could lead to rise in employment disputes, lawyers say
Employment lawyers discuss implications of government review of modern working practices
July 13, 2017 at 05:10 AM
3 minute read
The publication this week of the Taylor review of modern working practices could lead to more cases being filed against businesses due to rising awareness of worker categorisation, lawyers have said.
The report, which was commissioned by Prime Minister Theresa May last October, sets out recommendations to improve modern employment, with a focus on new forms of work and employee rights in the gig economy.
Employee and worker categorisation had been widely expected to be at the forefront of the report, following high profile disputes involving gig economy companies such as Uber and Deliveroo.
Some lawyers have said the recommendations do not provide enough clarity on the status of workers for such companies and, in fact, could cause further confusion over their legal status.
Leigh Day associate solicitor Nigel McKay, who has represented Uber drivers and Deliveroo riders in employment disputes, said: "More litigation is a potential outcome of the review, particularly because the recommended changes will not be implemented in the near future – or at all, given the current governmental situation.
"The coverage that has come out of previous claims against gig economy employers has brought this issue into the public eye, and I think this publication will do the same. People will start to think: 'I don't get holiday pay, yet I am working under the control of my employer'.
"The report highlights what rights people are entitled to. In the meantime, the only way of asserting those rights is to go to a tribunal."
This view is supported by Fieldfisher employment, pensions and immigration head Ranjit Dhindsa. She suggested that the review's recommendations do not reduce confusion around employment categories and that further consultation is required.
She said: "There is still scope for uncertainty and we are still going to end up in tribunal stage with employment cases. It is a huge report, but the underlying issue is what a person's work status is and what the implication of that is.
"Employers will have views on the cost of implementing the review's recommendations and reviewing the labour force. Employees might also have a view on what it means for their work flexibility, their rights and how they pay tax. We need consultation so that both sides can feed into the debate."
Lawyers have also raised concerns that the recommendations of the report may result in employers becoming more 'creative' with their categorisation of employees.
Paul Hastings international employment head Suzanne Horne said: "It won't reduce the amount of litigation, because employees and workers will still be arguing over what their employment categorisation should be.
"From an employer perspective, if there were greater definition around classification of workers, that may reduce disputes in the workplace. But I don't think this report is going to resolve the issues from the gig economy.
"One of the interesting things about these new business models is that they are exploring the boundaries of what being an employee or worker does or does not mean. One of the issues that could come out of the report is that there will be even more creative ways to categorise people."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLeigh Day Defeats Eversheds to Win Equal Pay Award For Next Employees
Trending Stories
- 1Bankruptcy Judge to Step Down in 2025
- 2Justices Seek Solicitor General's Views on Music Industry's Copyright Case Against ISP
- 3Judge to hear arguments on whether Google's advertising tech constitutes a monopoly
- 4'Big Law Had Become Too Woke': Why Bill Barr Moved On
- 5Manhattan US Attorney Damian Williams Announces Resignation From Office
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250