Лектор докладно проаналізувала разом з учасниками сучасний трудовий договір, а саме:

1. Основні поняття та концепції сучасного трудового права / Key definitions and concepts in modern employment law.

• 1.1. Визначення трудового договору та його відмінність від цивільно-правових угод.
• 1.2. Основні права та обов’язки роботодавця і працівника.
• 1.3. Види трудових договорів (fixed-term, at-will, zero-hours and others).

2. Сучасні тенденції трудового права: виклики та перспективи/ Modern trends in employment law: challenges and perspectives.

• 2.1. Відрядження працівників (secondment) та його юридичні наслідки.
• 2.2. Аутстафінг (outstaffing) та особливості регулювання.
• 2.3. Дистанційна робота (remote work): правові аспекти та захист прав працівників.
• 2.4. Угоди про неконкуренцію (non-compete agreements): законність та обмеження.
• 2.5. Політика щодо непереманювання працівників (non-solicitation).

3.Адаптація сучасних трудових тенденцій в Україні / Adaptation of modern employment trends in Ukraine.

• 3.1. Чи дозволяє українське законодавство застосувати закордоннні концепції?
• 3.2. Виклики для бізнесу та працівників.
• 3.3. Судова практика та рекомендації щодо впровадження сучасних підходів.

4. Прецедентна практика та знакові судові рішення у сфері трудового права / Landmark case law shaping modern employment law.

• 4.1. Аналіз ключових судових рішень у Великій Британії.
• 4.2. Вплив прецедентного права на формування трудових відносин.

У рамках характеристики сучасного трудового договору акцентовано на наступному:

1. Основніпоняттятаконцепціїсучасноготрудовогоправа/ Key definitions and concepts in modern employment law

Term of the contract:

• Open-ended contract – concluded for indefinite period:
• Fixed-term contract – concluded for a definite period.

Notice period:

When an employee leaves a job they usually have to worka noticeperiod.

A notice period is the amount of time an employee has to work for their employer after they resign, are dismissedor maderedundant.

At will employment:

Type of working engagement where both an employee and an employer may terminate employment:

• any time;
• for any reason or with no reason;
• with any notice period or with no notice period.

At will employment is allowed as long as the reason for termination is not illegal (i.e., dismissal due to the gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, or disability status of an employee is prohibited).

Garden leave:

A period of time after an employee leaves a job when they continue to be paid but are not allowed to go to work or to begin a new job.

Job offer:

• Unconditional -binding as soon as a person accepts it.
• Conditional – can be withdrawn if a person does not meet the employer’s conditions.

Unconditional and conditional offers:

Sarkerv South Tees Acute Hospitals NHS Trust (1997). Withdrawal of an accepted offer before the date on which the employment was due to start was a termination of employment in breach of contract, giving the claimant a cause of action in an employment tribunal.

Wishart v NACAB (1990). The company offered a job ‘’subject to receipt of satisfactory written references’’. The reference indicated that the claimant had a lot of sick days and the prospective employer decided to withdraw the offer. The claimant claimed that the reference would have been regarded as satisfactory by a reasonable employer, and that objective standard was the appropriate test to use. The court confirmed that the correct test is whether or not the references are seen as satisfactory by the employer in question; the test must be subjective.

1.1. Визначення трудового договору та його відмінність від цивільно-правових угод

Types of engagement:

• Employment – employee; employer.

• B2B (contractual) – contractor, private entrepreneur; customer, client.

It is not allowed to choose the B2B model if the relations between the contractors and a company are by their nature employment relations.

Reclassification occurs when a relevant authority or a court decides that individual classified by a company as a contractor is in fact an employee.

Reclassification criteria:

• subject-matter of the contract;
• payments;
• scope of contractor’s work;
• workplace;
• work schedule;
• benefits;
• integration;
• equipment;
• internal regulations and instructions;
• others.

Subject-matter of the contract:

Contractor:

1. Final results of works or services.
2. Project-based payments or different sums for each payment period.
3. Defined in detail.
4. Should not work in the company’s office and use its equipment.
5. Should not be subject to a work schedule determined by the company; works when he/she wants.
6. Works independently and is not subject to internal rules of a company.

Employee:

1. Processof work.
2. Regular payments at regular intervals (i.e., monthly salaryin 2 installments).
3. Notdefinedin detail.
4. Works in the company’s office (depending on a working arrangement)andusesits equipment.
5. Works in shifts or is otherwise subject to company’s internal workschedule.
6. Sick leave, annual and additional leaves, overtime payment, traveling expenses, pension schemes, medical insurance, unemployment insurance, etc.
7. Integrated to the company’s organization and is a part of the team. Strictly follows directions of a company and is subject to company’s internalregulations.

1.2. Основні права та обов’язки роботодавця і працівника

Express employment duties:

• Working hours;
• Restrictive covenants;
• Job duties;
• Salary.

A duty is express if it is explicitly agreed between the parties, either verbally or in writing.

Implied employment duties:

• Duty to maintain mutual trust and confidence;
• Duty of fidelity;
• Duty to provide a safe place of work.

A duty is implied if it is understood to be true or to exist, although it is not stated directly or in a legal agreement.

Duty to maintain mutual trust and confidence:

Not to act in such a way that is likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence between the parties.

Whether or not this term has been breached shall be judged objectively (i.e., it is not necessary to show that the employee has actually lost confidence in their employer) but whether the employer’s conduct was likely to bring about such a result, regardless of the employer’s actual intention.

Duty of fidelity:

An employee may not act against the interests of the employer whilst working for it.

Employment relations are one of those involving duties of good faith, sometimes described as duty of fidelity, or a duty to give good and faithful service. These duties are derived largely from the law of agency.

Duty to provide a safe place of work:

To make sure that workers are protected from anything that may cause harm, and controlling any risks to injury or health that could arise within their working environment.

Case law:

1. USDAW v Tesco Stores Ltd (2022):

An express term of the contract stated that retained pay would be ‘’permanent’’, but 12 years later the employer was planning to dismiss employees and offer them new contracts without this benefit. The High Court held that a term should be implied that the benefit was for life and could not be lost. This prevents the employer from terminating contracts to get rid of retained pay.

2. Ali v Christian Salvesen (1997):

The employee was employed under an annualized hours contract which meant that he only became entitled to overtime after having worked 1,924 hours in a year. Ali was made redundant 5 months later after working more than 40 hours every week. He claimed for an implied term that he should be entitled to pro rata overtime in these circumstances. The court held that this was not an example of incomplete contract: the terms were settled though CBA and omission of a term on this point was more likely to be deliberate.

3. United Bank v Akhtar (1989):

Although an implied term could not contradict an express term, it could control its exercise. Courts implied a term that the bank should give reasonable notice of exercise of the mobility clause, so as not to make it impossible for the employee to comply with his contractual obligation to move.

4. Horkular v Cantor Fitzgerald International (2004):

Where an employer had discretionary power under the contract, its exercise was subject to an implied term that the discretion would be exercised in good faith. This is in accordance with the implied duty on both parties to maintain mutual trust and confidence in the employment relationship.

1.3. Види трудових договорів (fixed-term, at-will, zero-hours and others)

• Zero hours contract – трудовий договір з нефіксованим робочим часом.

Section 27A of Employment Rights Act 1996:

A contract of employment or other worker’s contract under which— (a) the undertaking to do or perform work or services is an undertaking to do so conditionally on the employer making work or services available to the worker, and (b) there is no certainty that any such work or services will be made available to the worker.

Any provision of a zero hours contract which— (a)prohibits the worker from doing work or performing services under another contract or under any other arrangement, or (b)prohibits the worker from doing so without the employer’s consent, is unenforceable against the worker.

In 2023 there were approximately 1.18 million people on zero hours contracts in the United Kingdom, compared with 1.03 million in the previous year. Since 2000 there has been a net increase of 995,000 people on this type of employment contract.

Changes in 2024: The King’s Speech confirmed that the government will ban so-called “exploitative” zero hours contracts, “ensuring workers have a right to a contract that reflects the number of hours they regularly work and that all workers get reasonable notice of any changes in shift with proportionate compensation for any shifts cancelled or curtailed.”

Employment rights Bill 2024:

• Reasonablenoticeof shiftandits cancellationor change;
• Reasonablenumberof shifts;
• Compensationif shiftsare cancelled, movedor curtailedat shortnotice;
• Right to requestsecure workinghoursafter12-weeksperiodof work.

2. Сучасні тенденції трудового права: виклики та перспективи/ Modern trends in employment law: challenges and perspectives.

2.1. Відрядження працівників (secondment) та його юридичні наслідки

Secondment of employees:

Secondment – temporary assignment of an employee to work for another employer.

• Secondment Agreement;
• Immigration Rules.

2.2. Аутстафінг (outstaffing) та особливості регулювання

Employers of record:

EOR Provider. Disadvantageous:

• Obligation to comply with labour law. requirements when employing employees.
• Obligation to bear the administrative burden of paying payroll taxes, maintaining HR records.
• The risk of claims from employees engaged at the request of the recipient lies with the EOR provider.

Recipient of EOR Services. Disadvantageous:

• Risk of reclassification of employees engaged through the EOR provider as the employees of recipients.
• IP created by employees during their engagement does not automatically transfer to the recipient.

2.3. Дистанційна робота (remote work): правові аспекти та захист прав працівників

Working pattern:

• On-site – work in the Employer’s office;
• Remote – work whenever you want;
• Hybrid – mixed scheme of working from the office and remotely.

2.4. Угоди про неконкуренцію (non–compete agreements): законність та обмеження

Restrictive covenants:

1. Non-compete – prevents an employee who leaves a company from working for another company or staring his/her own business involved in the same activity for a particular period.

2. Non-solicitation – prevents an employee who leaves a company from soliciting a company’s clients or employees, for his/herown benefitor for thebenefitofa competitor.

3. Non-disclosure – prevents an employee from disclosing company’s information.

2.5. Політика щодо непереманювання працівників (non–solicitation)

General requirements to restrictive covenants:

• Protecting legitimate interest.
• Reasonable in terms of time and area covered.

Limited protection of legitimate interest:

• Trade secrets and confidential information;
• Working for competitors;
• Existing customers and connections;
• Enticing existing employees.

Working for competitors:

Commercial Plastics Ltd v Vincent: The protection taken out bythe employer must be only in respect ofhis specific interests, and if it is too wide for thispurpose, it will bevoid. A covenant with no geographical limitation will normallybe unenforceable.

Littlewoods Organisation Ltd v Harris: Where a covenant was drafted in general terms, which without alteration could be construed in a sense which was not unreasonably wide, the court could construe the covenant in that sense, thereby rendering it valid and enforceable.

The importance of an employee:

Quilter Private Client Advisers Ltd v Falconer: The threat of a departing employee requires less protection if she has had less ofan opportunity to build such a relationship with theclients. Having access to client-related documentation does not of itselfbuilda strongclient.

Justifying the restriction:

Turner v Commonwealth and British Minerals Ltd: The fact that the employee is given a payment to enter into a restrictive covenant is a relevant factor to be taken into account, but it is not conclusive, and the restrain is still required to be justified Interpretation: If there are two alternative constructions of a covenant, the court should prefer the construction that would be enforceableif legitimate.

J A Mont (UK) Ltd v Mills: A court will not re-write a covenant to make it enforceable if it is too broad. Nor will it construe a wide (and void) restriction as having implied (and valid) limitations: to do so would mean that employers would have no incentive to payattention to the accurate draftingof restrictive covenants.

Soliciting existing customers and connections:

Marley Tile Co Ltd v Johnson: A covenant can restrict the right to solicit former customers, or to have post-employment dealings with such customers, but it is likely that such clauses should be limited to those customers with whom theex-employee has some dealings.

WRN Ltd v Ayris: A restrictive covenant that prevents an employee from soliciting oraccepting business from his formeremployer’s customers will be unenforceable if it extends to customers with whom the employee personally had no dealings.

Enticing existing employees:

TSC Europe UK Ltd v Massey: A restriction which seek to prevent a person from poaching employees, irrespective of their expertise, technical knowledge, and juniority, and which could also apply to employees who were not in the employment when the defendant left, is clearly a restriction against competition and is void.

3.Адаптація сучасних трудових тенденцій в Україні / Adaptation of modern employment trends in Ukraine.

3.1. Чи дозволяє українське законодавство застосувати закордоннні концепції?

Ukraine perspective:

• Secondment of employees;
• Outstaffing;
• Non-compete and non-solicitation;
• Remote work;
• Zero-hours contracts;
• PILON.

3.2. Виклики для бізнесу та працівників

Для бізнесу:

• Необхідність дотримання трудового законодавства навіть при використанні іноземних моделей (наприклад, через EOR).
• Ризик судових позовів щодо перекваліфікації відносин (наприклад, Uber v Aslam).
• Додаткове навантаження щодо оподаткування, кадрового обліку, IP-прав.

Для працівників:

• Відсутність гарантій при нетипових формах праці (гіг-контракти, аутстафінг).
• Можливе обмеження трудових прав (відсутність відпусток, гарантій безпеки праці).
• Проблеми із прозорістю умов і нерівний баланс сил у трудових договорах.

3.3. Судова практика та рекомендації щодо впровадження сучасних підходів

• Справи Uber (UK): суд визнав водіїв “працівниками”, а не підрядниками, через високий рівень контролю Uber.
• UK кейси (Wishart, USDAW, Horkular): показують необхідність балансу між свободою роботодавця і захистом працівника.

Рекомендації:

• Адаптувати українське трудове законодавство до нових реалій (гіг-економіка, аутсорсинг, дистанційна праця).
• Забезпечити прозорість умов праці в контрактах.
• Уточнити правовий статус нестандартних форм зайнятості.
• Впровадити механізми перевірки добросовісності роботодавців.

4. Прецедентна практика та знакові судові рішення у сфері трудового права / Landmark case law shaping modern employment law.

4.1. Аналіз ключових судових рішень у Великій Британії

Uber BV v Aslam (2021):

• Водії Uber оскаржили свій статус «незалежних підрядників».
• Верховний суд визнав їх “працівниками”, що дало їм право на мінімальну зарплату, оплачувані відпустки та інші гарантії.
• Показує, що формальний контракт не завжди визначає реальні трудові відносини — ключове має значення фактичний контроль і залежність.

USDAW v Tesco (2022):

• Суд заборонив роботодавцю змінювати «постійні» умови оплати праці шляхом звільнення і повторного найму.
• Було імпліцитно визнано, що працівники мають довгострокове право на певні виплати, навіть без прямої вказівки в договорі.

Horkular v Cantor Fitzgerald (2004):

• Суд встановив, що дискреційні повноваження роботодавця (наприклад, у призначенні бонусів) мають застосовуватись добросовісно, відповідно до принципу довіри.

United Bank v Akhtar (1989):

• Обмежив застосування мобільного положення у контракті — роботодавець має попереджати працівника заздалегідь, щоб забезпечити можливість виконання умов.

4.2. Вплив прецедентного права на формування трудових відносин

Формування стандартів: прецеденти встановлюють тлумачення ключових понять: “працівник”, “контракт”, “довіра”, “справедливість”.

Обмеження роботодавця: судова практика обмежує можливість односторонньої зміни умов праці та дискреційного управління.

Захист працівників: прецеденти створюють додаткові (іноді імпліцитні) гарантії для працівників, навіть якщо їх немає в письмовому контракті.

Вплив на Україну: ці кейси часто використовуються для порівняльного аналізу, імплементації best practices та адаптації національного законодавства (особливо в контексті гармонізації з європейськими стандартами).

Першоджерело - https://tinyurl.com/zzven9x7