More unrest at the BBC – now it’s about personal service contracts and a word of warning about the ostensibly self-employed

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of “employment” provided through personal service companies is that such arrangements have lasted as long as they have.

When the BBC first published the salaries of its top presenters last year there were some notable omissions. For example David Dimbleby didn’t appear on the list. Why? Because he is paid by the BBC through a separate production company. Similar arrangements are in place for Lord Alan Sugar, John Torode and Gregg Wallace.

For years the BBC has encouraged and, some have argued, mandated some of their key talent to be paid through a personal service company. The idea is that the company provides the services of, say, the presenter to the BBC and the BBC therefore pays the company for the services provided. The upshot is that the presenter benefits from the lower tax regime for limited companies (currently 20%) rather than the higher personal tax rates of 40% over £45,000 and 45% over £150,000.

Unsurprisingly, HMRC have been chipping away at such arrangements for a number of years and, as far as the BBC is concerned, matters recently came to a head with a victory in the High Court against BBC Look North presenter Christa Ackroyd. Ms Ackroyd was sacked by the BBC in 2013 after HMRC demanded unpaid taxes from her on the basis that she was, in reality, an employee of the BBC and therefore required to be taxed under Schedule E. Her HMRC appeal was unsuccessful and she is now facing a bill for £419,151 in back taxes, plus undisclosed legal costs. An HMRC spokesman reiterated their long held view that “employment status is never a matter of choice…It is always dictated by the facts and when the wrong tax is being paid we put things right”.

You may take the view that Ms Ackroyd had tried it on and been caught out but, as is so often the case, it is by no means that straightforward and the BBC is very much under scrutiny as a result of its actions.

Severe consequences for breaching court order

People often take the view that they can be quite blasé about their contractual obligations, mainly because employers often take the view that suing them is more trouble than it is worth. However, a recent High Court judgment shows that this is a risky course of action and the consequences for serious breaches can be very severe.

OCS Group UK Limited provides services in the aviation industry. It had a contract to provide cleaning and other services to British Airways at Heathrow Airport. In February 2017 it lost the contract which was awarded to a competing firm, Omni Serv Limited. Mr Jagdeep Dadi worked for OCS providing services under the contract until 28 February 2017, when his employment was TUPE transferred to Omni Serv. On 27 February OCS issued proceedings against Mr Dadi and others, seeking declaratory relief (an order determining the rights of the parties without awarding damages or directing anything to be done), an injunction against the defendants and damages for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and/or breach of confidence. It was alleged that they had transmitted confidential documents and information to their home email addresses or external storage devices and that they had made unlawful use of them and/or transmitted them to third parties.

In Mr Dadi’s case, it was claimed that, between 2014 and February 2017, he had sent confidential documents to his personal web-based email account, including information about the logistics and costs of providing aircraft cleaning and other services to British Airways.

The matter came before Mr Justice Marcus Smith on 27 February, without prior notice to Mr Dadi. He granted an interim injunction against Mr Dadi (and others), prohibiting him from disclosing confidential information belonging to OCS and requiring him to provide information about prior disclosures to third parties. He was ordered to retain hard copy and electronic documents, pending a further hearing. He was also ordered not to disclose the existence of the proceedings and the possibility of proceedings against others to anyone other than his legal advisers.

He decided not to defend the underlying proceedings and a default judgment was entered against him.

As is usual in such cases the order of Mr Justice Marcus Smith included a penal notice which warned him that disobedience of the order rendered him liable to be imprisoned or fined or to have his assets seized. He was served with the order at Heathrow by in-house counsel for OCS at 3.10 p.m. on 27 February. While doing so she drew his attention to the penal notice on the front page of the order and read it to him. She also advised him to obtain legal advice as a matter of urgency.

What happens if an employment relationship ends within the initial 6 week ‘honeymoon period’?

You know when something is so awful, it’s good? Well, that describes my relationship with the Channel 4 show Married at First Sight at the moment. I know it’s car crash TV and edited to within an inch of its life (with cheesy dramatic music at regular intervals) but I can’t seem to stop watching it.

Put simply, Married at First Sight is a ‘dating’ show where six individuals are married to a stranger who they literally meet for the first time at the altar. They don’t know their future spouse’s full name or even see a picture of them beforehand. This means they must buy the dress/suit and ring on their own and then meet their partner for the first time in front of their family and friends at the altar with the accompanying vicar. Each couple are then given 6 weeks (with the TV crew continuing to trail them at every turn) to have the wedding party, go on honeymoon, rent a house together and see if their lives can fit together. At the end of that ridiculously short period, they then decide whether to stay married or seek a divorce. Cue romance, tears, fights and one woman with a fear of dogs freaking out at having to live with her new husband’s two hyperactive dogs…

Why am I talking about this? Well, it happens to be a useful link to a regular employment law issue – namely, what happens if an employee/employer ‘divorces’ (i.e. leaves) the other within the 6 week ‘honeymoon’ (or not-so-honeymoon) period.

Voluntary overtime included within holiday pay: freely given time isn’t free!

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), the Tribunal which hears appeals from the regular Employment Tribunal, has recently confirmed that regular payments for overtime incurred voluntarily by employees should be taken into account when calculating an employee’s allowance of 20 days of holiday pay (this is the statutory minimum amount of holiday leave outside of the 8 days usually allowed for bank holidays). This was in a case called Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council v Willetts.


This follows the well-publicised case of Bear Scotland v Fulton in 2014 which stated that overtime should be factored into holiday pay calculations (mainly by averaging payments over a defined period of time  and ‘bumping up’ employee’s holiday pay accordingly).


However, there have been arguments that there should be a distinction between mandatory overtime and voluntary overtime. Just for clarity, when I say ‘voluntary’ overtime, I mean overtime that an employee isn’t contractually obliged to perform (i.e. I don’t mean unpaid overtime).  You can see both sides on this one – from one point of view, employees have no choice but to accept mandatory overtime and therefore only that should increase holiday pay amounts, whereas on the other hand, employees will still be working overtime whether voluntary or mandatory and shouldn’t they therefore be rewarded for their voluntary act?


On this occasion, the EAT has come down on the side of employees and concluded that, as long as the voluntary overtime is ‘regular’ enough, it should be used within holiday pay calculations.  This is because ‘regular’ payments will constitute ‘normal pay’ for the purposes of holiday pay calculations.  Naturally, the phrases in quotation marks are still prone to argument and a lot depends on the individual facts.


So, what does this mean going forward for employees?  Well, it suggests that employees on a voluntary rota (or similar) who are called to work voluntary overtime are entitled to an increase in their holiday pay in respect of that voluntary overtime.


Let’s take the case of six employees: Monica, Rachel, Phoebe, Joey, Ross and Chandler (yes, as you probably suspected, this is the cast of FRIENDS).

European Court of Justice gives OPINION on unpaid and untaken holidays

Does a worker’s holiday entitlement continue to accrue into successive years if they do not take their annual leave because their employer will not pay them for these holidays?

The Advocate General at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has answered ‘yes’ to this question, in a non-binding opinion.

In the case of King v The Sash Window Workshop Ltd, the Claimant, Mr King (who was a self-employed salesperson), brought an Employment Tribunal (ET) claim against the Respondent, The Sash Window Workshop, on the basis that he felt he was owed monies for annual leave that he had accrued, but not taken.  In addition, the Claimant sought compensation for annual leave that he had taken, but not been paid for during the 13 years he had been working for the Respondent – his claim for holiday pay therefore amounted to over £27,000.00.  It is of note that the contract under which Mr King was employed, provided no right to paid annual leave and that this contract was terminated in 2012, on his 65th birthday.  The Claimant also submitted a claim for age discrimination.

The claim was initially heard by the ET in August 2013.  It was ruled at first instance that Mr King was to be deemed a worker for the purposes of the Working Time Regulations 1998, and also that his discrimination claim was well founded.

The Respondent subsequently appealed against the decision of the ET in respect of the holiday pay aspect of the claim, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowing the appeal and remitting the holiday claim back to the ET.  Mr King then submitted an appeal to the Court of Appeal who referred the case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

ECJ Advocate General Evgeni Tanchev, stated that employers had to provide “adequate facilities to workers” to enable them to take their paid annual leave.  Tanchev further stated:

“A worker, like Mr King, may rely on [EU law] to secure payment in lieu of untaken leave, when no facility has been made available by the employer, for exercise of the right to paid annual leave … Upon termination of the employment relationship a worker is entitled to an allowance in lieu of paid annual leave that has not been taken up.

“I appreciate that the answers to the questions referred I am here proposing would require employers rather than workers to take all the necessary steps to ascertain whether they are bound to create an adequate facility for the exercise of the right to paid annual leave, whether those steps be the taking of legal advice, consultation with relevant unions or seeking counsel from Member State bodies that are responsible for the enforcement of labour law.

“If an employer does not take such action, it will risk having to make a payment in lieu of unpaid leave on termination of the employment relationship. However, this would be in keeping with guaranteeing the effet utile of the right to paid annual leave, a fundamental right of substantive normative weight in Member State law, EU law, and international law, and would also be consistent with the practical reality, recognised in the Court’s case-law, of the worker’s position as the weaker party in the relationship.”

Do employees have to disclose their intention to compete?

In the case of MPT Group Ltd v Peel and others [2017] EWHC 1222 (Ch), the High Court was asked to decide whether employees were under a duty to disclose their intention to compete to their employer.

The facts of the case were that Mr Peel and Mr Birtwistle were employed by MPT Group Ltd (a company that produces and supplies machinery, parts and equipment to the mattress industry) in management positions.  The employees resigned from their positions on the same date, Mr Peel giving the reason for his resignation as wanting to work from home and spend more time with his family, and Mr Birtwistle advising he had been offered a position doing ‘panel wiring’.  They denied that they were leaving to form a partnership/start up their own business in competition with MPT.

Both Peel and Birtwistle were subject to extensive confidentiality clauses and restrictive covenants within their contracts of employment, to the extent that they were prohibited from soliciting or even dealing with customers with whom they had personal contact, for six months.

After the relevant period had expired however, Peel and Birtwistle incorporated MattressTek Ltd, a company that was in direct competition with MPT, and began selling complex mattress machines.  It further transpired that prior to leaving MPT, both men had copied a large amount of company data which included client and supplier databases, price and discount lists, sales quotations and orders, machinery drawings and manuals, and other documentation crucial to MPT’s business.

MPT sought an injunction against the men based on the misuse of confidential information, breach of restrictive covenants, and also upon a breach of the duty to answer questions truthfully.  In particular they sought an interim injunction prohibiting Peel, Birtwistle and MattressTek from soliciting, dealing or contracting with MPT’s customer and suppliers, and an unlimited injunction preventing them from disclosing or using MPT’s confidential information.

Deliveroo makes changes to contracts for UK Couriers

Following on from my colleague Martin Malone’s article back in March, takeaway delivery Company Deliveroo have now removed the clause in their self-employed courier’s contracts (or ‘supplier agreements’), which stated that the couriers would not be permitted to challenge their self-employed status at an Employment Tribunal.

New contracts (which are now just four pages long) have been distributed to the couriers,  and confirm that they can work for other businesses and no longer need to provide two weeks’ notice to terminate their contract with Deliveroo.

Dan Warne, Deliveroo UK MD, provided the couriers with a letter by way of further explanation, which stated the following:

“We know that many riders work with other companies as well as Deliveroo, including our competitors. That is fine with us: as an independent contractor you are free to work with whoever you choose and wear whatever kit you want.

“There continues to be no requirement to wear Deliveroo branded kit while you work with us, but please make sure that whatever you wear while riding means that you are safe and visible to other road users.

“This new simple supplier agreement for riders makes it easier than ever to work with Deliveroo. It makes clear that our riders are able to log in to work with us whenever they want – allowing them to fit their work around their life rather than their life around their work.”

The changes have been made following criticism from the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee, who advised that companies such as Deliveroo, Amazon and Uber, deprived workers of their rights with the wording of the contracts previously utilised.

The distribution of the new contracts also came less than a day after the leak of Labour’s draft manifesto, which contained a proposal for the ‘gig economy’ to assume workers are employees unless proven to the contrary.

Communicating notice of termination of employment – when does the notice period start?

In many situations the date on which someone receives notice of termination of employment and the corresponding date on which termination takes effect are neither here nor there. In other cases they can be critically important. One such case was recently considered by the Court of Appeal in Newcastle Upon Tyne NHS Foundation v Sandi Haywood.

Mrs Haywood was employed as an associate director of business development at Newcastle PCT from November 2008 to April 2011. She was on a salary of £84,446 p.a. and her contract provided for a minimum notice period either way of 12 weeks. Following a merger in April 2011 her contract was transferred to Newcastle Upon Tyne NHS Foundation. She was advised that she was at risk of being made redundant and a discussion meeting took place on 13 April 2011. It was confirmed at the meeting that no decision had been made about redundancy, alternative posts were considered and she was informed that she would be entitled to an NHS pension of about £200,000 if she was made redundant after 20 July 2011. She accepted that her post was redundant.

Mrs Haywood commenced sick leave immediately, brought on by the stress of the meeting. She commenced annual leave on 18 April and was on holiday in Egypt from 19 to 27 April. She remained on sick leave until 20 May 2011.

Her redundancy was confirmed. However, the key question left to be answered was whether she received her 12 weeks’ notice of dismissal before her 50th birthday on 20 July since that would have a significant effect on her pension entitlement. The employer maintained that notice was given that would expire before her birthday but she did not read the letter until her return on 27 April, so that if notice was calculated from that date it would expire after her birthday.

Notice was provided in a recorded delivery letter which was collected from the sorting office by her father in law on 26 April. There was also an email to Mrs Haywood’s husband’s email account , which was sent on 20 April at 10:55. A letter was also sent by normal post but this was disregarded as an effective method of communication. All the communications provided 12 weeks’ notice purportedly terminating on 15 July 2011. Mrs Haywood was also placed on garden leave. For the notice period to include her 50th birthday the notice would need to have been served by 26 April 2011. Mrs Haywood said that she opened the recorded delivery letter at 08:30 on 27 April and Mr Haywood did not read the email until 10:14 on the same day.

Sitting in the High Court in Leeds Judge Raeside QC decided that she was only given notice when she read the letter so that she remained employed up to and including her 50th birthday. She was therefore entitled to the better pension terms. The employer appealed and the matter was heard by the Court of Appeal in mid-February 2017 with judgment handed down on 17 March.

More news about modern working practices and the “gig economy”

Last week’s news was dominated by the Budget and the Class 4 National Insurance contributions’ increase which was announced and then, within 24 hours, kicked into the long grass. An interesting fact which emerged in the news is that the UK workforce now includes 15% who are classed a self-employed for tax purposes. However, as I have reported this month (in the Pimlico Plumbers case) many of these people are nonetheless classified as workers in the context of employment law and therefore have rights which can be pursued in employment tribunals.

On 22 February The Work and Pensions Committee heard evidence from executives from Uber, Deliveroo, Amazon and courier firm Hermes UK as part of its investigation into modern employment practices. It is estimated that there are now some five million workers in the “gig economy”, of whom some 910,000 are on zero hours contracts, an increase of 100,000 from 2015 to 2016 (ONS Labour Force Survey). UK and Ireland managing director of Deliveroo, Dan Warne, said that flexibility is important to its riders, adding:
We cannot offer that amount of flexibility to those riders if we’re forced to pay a given wage and a given hour to every single rider.
However, it emerged recently that Deliveroo had a clause in its contracts that banned workers from contesting their self-employed status in employment tribunals. Under questioning, Mr Warne acknowledged that the Company needed to “revise the contract”. He said:
This is not something that’s enforced, so there’s no need to have it in there… In practice, if they wished to contest their [self-employed] status they could do so and we wouldn’t challenge them on that.
Although the clause would almost certainly not have been enforceable, it is easy to see how it could operate as a powerful disincentive to low-paid riders with no guarantee of work.

Meanwhile, it has emerged that DPD, which deliver parcels for Marks & Spencer, John Lewis and River Island, fines their couriers £150 per day if they cannot find cover when they are ill. This has resulted in drivers being forced to work when they are sick. The fine, which is described as “liquidated damages”, means that couriers who earn on average £200 a day, lose £350 if they cannot work through illness and are unable to find a substitute. Chair of the select committee, Frank Field, commented:

The gig economy is producing wave after wave of evidence on the grim reality of life at the bottom of Britain’s labour market…A group of companies now controls the working lives of an unknown number of people, and yet evades its own responsibilities as employers and taxpayers by labelling those people as self-employed… This move [by DPD] makes the rest of the gig economy look as though it operates in the Garden of Eden.

A local example of dubious working practices came to light a few weeks ago. Mooboo Bubble Tea, a cafe chain, has a branch located in Liverpool One. New staff reported that they were being made to work a 40-hour trial shift with no pay and no guarantee of a job, apparently in direct breach of the minimum wage regulations.

Pimlico Plumbers and the definition of a “worker”

As I mentioned in last month’s newsletter, an important judgment concerning the status of workers was handed down by the Court of Appeal on 10 February, namely Pimlico Plumbers Limited and Mullins -v- Smith. The decision was regarded as significant enough to make it on to the national news bulletins and Newsnight, as well as widespread coverage in the press.

Mr Smith is a plumber who worked exclusively for Pimlico Plumbers between August 2005 and April 2011. He claims that, following a heart attack in January 2011, he was wrongfully dismissed in May 2011. According to his initial agreement with Pimlico Plumbing he was a “sub contracted employee”. The contract also stipulated that he had to wear a Pimlico Plumbers uniform, work for five days a week (a minimum of 40 hours), give notice of annual leave and be available to take on-call work. There was a ban on undertaking what was described as “private work”, breach of which would lead to instant dismissal. The contract also provided for payment of “wages”.

The initial contract was replaced with a longer and more detailed contract in 2009, which was entitled “Agreement – Self-Employed Operative”. Mr Smith was required to provide his own tools and equipment and he had to pay his own expenses. He also had to maintain adequate public liability insurance. Sub-paragraph 6.1 of the contract stated:
You are an independent contractor of the Company, in business on your own account. Nothing in this Agreement shall render you an employee, agent or partner of the Company and the termination of this Agreement (for whatever reason) shall not constitute a dismissal for any purpose.
Following the termination of the 2009 contract, Mr Smith lodged an employment tribunal claim, complaining of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, entitlement to pay during medical suspension, holiday pay and arrears of pay. He also claimed direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability and a failure to make reasonable adjustments on account of his disability. At a pre-hearing review Judge Corrigan determined that Mr Smith was not an employee. There were circumstances set out in the contract in which Pimlico Plumbers did not have to pay Mr Smith such as when an invoice was unpaid after six months; he had to rectify problems at his own cost; the understanding of the parties that he was self-employed, both for employment and tax purposes, and that he was VAT registered.

However, Judge Corrigan went on to find that he was a ‘worker’ within the meaning set out in section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996: