Hello and welcome back to another employment law update, your monthly round up of all things employment law. Last month’s update had features on tribunal statistics, maternity rights and equal pay. Meanwhile, last week’s case law update looked at restrictive covenants. This week, we have a lot for you. Particularly some good PJH Law news.
If you cast your mind back to late last year, you may remember that we covered Jess Varnish’s case against British Cycling and UK Sport. In our previous update, we looked at how it might be possible for Varnish to be found as at least a worker given the high degree of control exerted over her.
However, the ET has found that Ms Varnish was not an employee or a worker and in fact the relationship between the parties was more akin to that of a student and university. As there was no employment status, the rest of her case falls away.
Whilst very few employers have a similar working relationship to athlete and coaching body, this does yet provide another example of how the whole topic of employment status needs clearing up to avoid confusion for both employers and those engaged by them.