Month: July 2020

Hairdresser Meghan Gorman, Age 26, joined Terence Paul salon in Manchester City centre, as a 19-year-old trainee in 2013 and later began work on a contract called “Independent Contract for Services” as a self-employed hairdresser.

Meghan brough a claim against her employer, arguing that, although she had a contract as a self-employed hairdresser, the amount of control over her working practices effectively made her an employee:

• She worked for six years at a Terence Paul salon until it closed in 2019

• She had to work the hours set by the salon

• Terence Paul kept 67% of her takings

• She was not entitled to any benefits such as holiday or redundancy pay

• Terence Paul claimed the company’s self-employed hairdressers had control over the hours and days they worked, their starting and finishing times, treatments they could give and their holidays.

• Ms Gorman disputed this, saying she had to work from 9am-6pm from Monday to Saturday, had no control over pricing or offering discounts, had to use the company’s products, conform to Terence Paul’s standards of dress, and had to tell the salon if she wanted time off.

Meghan and her lawyers won her employment tribunal claim and the preliminary judgment found in her favour – claiming she had performed her duties with an ‘employed’ status all along.

This preliminary judgment could affect thousands of hairdressers nationwide and other contractors employed on similar self-employed status contracts.

• Many hairdressers and others on similar ‘Self-Employed’ contracts could discover they are working on an employed basis and therefore entitled to the perks, holiday allowances, sick pay and employment rights of those on standard employment contracts.

Around 330,000 people work in the beauty industry in the UK, more than 80% of them women, according to industry figures.

Employment Tribunal Judge Marion Batten ruled in Ms Gorman’s favour in March 2020, with the reasons for the ruling released this week [19^th July 2020].

Ms Gorman said:
“They clearly had the power and control. I did not believe it could be considered I was in business on my own account.

“I had thought for some time that the contract they had in place was not right, saying I was self-employed when they had all those rules in place.”

Vaishali Thakerar, Associate Director at Lawson West Solicitors and Head of the Employment team added:

“Ill-informed or unscrupulous employers welcome self-employed status employee contracts as it frees them up from offering a comprehensive benefits package to staff. It saves them money as they don’t have to pay for holiday time off, benefits like pension provision, sick pay, notice period and maternity leave. The employee is given a loose contract (if at all), one that doesn’t genuinely represent their employed status accurately and doesn’t truly protect the employee’s best interests as it should. These are Victorian practices, I’m surprised they still go on, but unfortunately these poorly-written contracts are more common than you think.”

This case joins others on the definition of “worker” status like Pimlico Plumbers (the Supreme Court), Uber Drivers (on appeal from The Court of Appeal), City Sprint and Deliveroo whose ‘self-employed’ contractors have challenged their legal status.

If you are self-employed or contracting and would like a professional solicitor to review your contract of employment and your employed status, we can help. Please contact: vaishali.thakerar@lawson-west.co.uk, Solicitor, Associate Director and Head of Employment.

Read more…

BBC News article

With conversations in the media favouring the return of the State Pension Age (SPA) to 60, allowing more jobs for younger people to filter through, tomorrow sees a very important date in the legal calendar which could add weight to the argument.

Delve and another -v- The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

On 21^st and 22^nd July 2020, the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) heard the evidence in Delve and another -v- The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

This landmark legal discussion centres around women born in the 1950s who were to retire at the State Pension Age (SPA) of 60, only to find themselves forced to work until 65, 66 and 68 years due to the impact of the equalisation of the male and female State Pension Age (SPA) in the Pensions Acts and legislation of 1995, 2011 and 2014. But this case is not just about the age limits, the women can argue that because of the pensions legislation the Government has failed in its obligation to pay them a pension in the years that have been stripped away.

Backto60: Delve and Glynn

In 2019, Julie Delve, 61, and Karen Glynn, 63 – supported by campaign group Backto60 – took the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to court for discrimination, arguing that raising their pension age unlawfully discriminated against them on the grounds of age and sex, and that they were not given adequate notice of the changes.

In a summary of the Court’s October 2019 decision to dismiss, Lord Justice Irwin and Mrs Justice Whipple said: “There was no direct discrimination on grounds of sex, because this legislation does not treat women less favourably than men in law.”

The Court of Appeal will hear evidence this week further to the order of the Divisional Court (3rd October 2019) that dismissed the claim for judicial review of the “taper mechanisms chosen” to implement the Government’s policy of raising and equalising the SPA and “the failure to inform women of the changes”.

Boris Johnson

Boris Johnson’s pledge during the Tory leadership campaign to look at the state pension age issue with “fresh vigour” is also in the spotlight and since being made PM in November 2019 he back-tracked somewhat later saying “We’re going to look at it but it is not possible to satisfy all the demands of the WASPI women”.

After the disappointment in the Royal Courts of Justice, London, in October 2019, where their claim failed, Delve and Glynn now bring the matter to the Court of Appeal. The sitting Justices will be The Right Honourable Sir Nicholas Underhill, Lord Justice of Appeal and Dame Vivien Justice Rose.

If Delve and Glynn win their appeal case, it could open-up the pension age debate much further in the coming months and years.

Lawson West’s employment lawyer, Carrie-Ann Randall comments on the case:

“The step changes in law surrounding the establishment of equality for women goes back over 100 years (see our related 100 years of law article) and it is important for women to be recognised as equal to men at any age and for generations to come. The current pension law which dates from 2011-2014, whilst attempting to equalise State Pension Age (SPA) and make a level-playing field for both men and women, has not been popular and the legislation’s attempt to be equal has in fact created inequality in certain age groups of women.This inequality is real and is clearly evidenced by the sentiments of the supporters of WASPI and Backto60.

I support wholeheartedly the case of Delve and Glynn. We shouldn’t take women’s rights for granted under any circumstances and where there is misalignment and discrimination, in my mind, our courts have an obligation to seek it out and repair what’s unfair.”

Useful Links

Women Against State Pension Age (WASPI)

Backto60 – full restitution

The October 2019 Ruling – Michael Mansfield QC    

Judicial Review hearing is granted

Impact of State Pensions Changes since 1995

The Pensions Act 2014