Лектор докладно проаналізувала разом з учасниками знакові справи у сфері трудового права, а саме:
1. Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Respondent) v Professional Game Match Officials Ltd (Appellant) – справа щодо класифікації правовідносин між футбольною організацією та суддями матчів, яких залучали до суддівства на періодичній основі.
2. Tesco Stores Ltd (Respondent) v Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and others (Appellants) – справа щодо правомірності звільнення працівників з конкретною метою позбавлення їх окремого виду виплат, право на які було погоджене як постійне.
У рамках характеристики справ у сфері трудового права акцентовано на наступному:
1. Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Respondent) v Professional Game Match Officials Ltd (Appellant)
The case concerned whether the legal relationship between Professional Game Match Officials Ltd (PGMOL) and part-time football referees constituted contracts of employment or contracts for services, determining whether PGMOL was required to deduct Income Tax and National Insurance contributions from payments made to referees
Key facts:
➤PGMOL provided referees for professional football matches in the UK.
➤Many referees worked on a part-time basis alongside other employment.
➤Referees received match fees, expenses and performance-related bonuses.
➤Match appointments were offered through a software system.
➤Referees could decline appointments, although PGMOL usually requested an explanation.
➤Once an appointment was accepted, the referee agreed to officiate the match and submit a match report, while PGMOL agreed to pay the relevant fee.
Legal issues:
1. Whether mutuality of obligations existed.
2. Whether PGMOL exercised a sufficient degree of control over referees to establish an employment relationship.
Court's findings:
➤Individual match appointments created contractual obligations between the parties once the referee accepted the appointment.
➤Mutuality of obligations existed because referees agreed to provide personal services and PGMOL agreed to pay for those services.
➤A sufficient degree of control did not require PGMOL to supervise every aspect of referees' performance during matches.
➤PGMOL's ability to assess and comment on referees' performance after matches constituted sufficient control consistent with an employment relationship.
2. Tesco Stores Ltd (Respondent) v Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and others (Appellants)
The case concerned whether Tesco could dismiss employees for the specific purpose of removing their contractual entitlement to retained pay, which had been agreed as a permanent benefit.
Key facts:
➤Tesco introduced retained pay in 2007 to encourage employees to relocate following the closure or restructuring of distribution centres.
➤Retained pay became an express contractual term.
➤The contracts stated that retained pay would remain a permanent feature of employees' contractual entitlement, subject to specified qualifications.
➤In 2021 Tesco sought to remove retained pay by offering compensation or dismissing and re-engaging employees on new contracts without the benefit.
Court's findings:
The retained pay entitlement was intended to continue for as long as employees remained in the same role, subject only to the contractual qualifications.
Tesco could not exercise its contractual right to dismiss employees for the purpose of depriving them of retained pay.
Such a limitation was an implied contractual term necessary for business efficacy and reflected the parties' objective intentions.
The "fire and rehire" strategy was incompatible with the permanent nature of the retained pay arrangement.
Remedy:
A specific injunction was appropriate because Tesco retained confidence in the employees and there had been no breakdown of mutual trust.
Damages were considered an inadequate remedy because it would be speculative to determine how long the employees would otherwise have remained employed.