King's College London

Research portal

Uber, the Taylor Review, Mutuality and the Duty Not to Misrepresent Employment Status

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Uber, the Taylor Review, Mutuality and the Duty Not to Misrepresent Employment Status. / McGaughey, Ewan.

In: INDUSTRIAL LAW JOURNAL, 06.07.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

McGaughey, E 2018, 'Uber, the Taylor Review, Mutuality and the Duty Not to Misrepresent Employment Status', INDUSTRIAL LAW JOURNAL.

APA

McGaughey, E. (2018). Uber, the Taylor Review, Mutuality and the Duty Not to Misrepresent Employment Status. INDUSTRIAL LAW JOURNAL.

Vancouver

McGaughey E. Uber, the Taylor Review, Mutuality and the Duty Not to Misrepresent Employment Status. INDUSTRIAL LAW JOURNAL. 2018 Jul 6.

Author

McGaughey, Ewan. / Uber, the Taylor Review, Mutuality and the Duty Not to Misrepresent Employment Status. In: INDUSTRIAL LAW JOURNAL. 2018.

Bibtex Download

@article{1344c27d7a9d43cb876cfe7148f7b973,
title = "Uber, the Taylor Review, Mutuality and the Duty Not to Misrepresent Employment Status",
abstract = "Do employing entities have a responsibility to not misrepresent the employment status of their staff? This article suggests that recent jurisprudence does create this responsibility. The article starts, first, by discussing the much-awaited Taylor Review, released in July 2017. This purported to address the problems of employment rights and tax in the software-driven ‘gig’ economy. Four main groups of Taylor’s recommendations were to relabel employment statuses and write more secondary legislation, reform tax, cut paid holidays and introduce new ‘soft’ labour rights. These proposals do not address the real issues. Second, this article explains why a test for employment status highlighted by Taylor—‘mutuality of obligation’—has not formed part of binding UK Supreme Court jurisprudence since Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher. Third, it discusses what the Taylor Review did not: the problem of misrepresentation of employment status, which has become closely associated with the gig economy. In October 2017, the Supreme Court issued a path-breaking judgment that changed the requirements for fraud cases, aligning the tests for civil and criminal fraud and therefore making fraud claims easier. This is relevant because of the very serious finding, in Aslam v Uber BV [2017] IRLR 4, [96] by the Employment Tribunal that Uber provided an ‘excellent illustration … of “armies of lawyers” contriving documents in their clients’ interests which simply misrepresent the true rights and obligations on both sides’. This raises the question of whether ‘contriving’ to ‘misrepresent’ something enables fraud claims, either by staff who seek employment rights or by public authorities for tax receipts or social security contributions.",
author = "Ewan McGaughey",
year = "2018",
month = "7",
day = "6",
language = "English",
journal = "INDUSTRIAL LAW JOURNAL",
issn = "0305-9332",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Uber, the Taylor Review, Mutuality and the Duty Not to Misrepresent Employment Status

AU - McGaughey, Ewan

PY - 2018/7/6

Y1 - 2018/7/6

N2 - Do employing entities have a responsibility to not misrepresent the employment status of their staff? This article suggests that recent jurisprudence does create this responsibility. The article starts, first, by discussing the much-awaited Taylor Review, released in July 2017. This purported to address the problems of employment rights and tax in the software-driven ‘gig’ economy. Four main groups of Taylor’s recommendations were to relabel employment statuses and write more secondary legislation, reform tax, cut paid holidays and introduce new ‘soft’ labour rights. These proposals do not address the real issues. Second, this article explains why a test for employment status highlighted by Taylor—‘mutuality of obligation’—has not formed part of binding UK Supreme Court jurisprudence since Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher. Third, it discusses what the Taylor Review did not: the problem of misrepresentation of employment status, which has become closely associated with the gig economy. In October 2017, the Supreme Court issued a path-breaking judgment that changed the requirements for fraud cases, aligning the tests for civil and criminal fraud and therefore making fraud claims easier. This is relevant because of the very serious finding, in Aslam v Uber BV [2017] IRLR 4, [96] by the Employment Tribunal that Uber provided an ‘excellent illustration … of “armies of lawyers” contriving documents in their clients’ interests which simply misrepresent the true rights and obligations on both sides’. This raises the question of whether ‘contriving’ to ‘misrepresent’ something enables fraud claims, either by staff who seek employment rights or by public authorities for tax receipts or social security contributions.

AB - Do employing entities have a responsibility to not misrepresent the employment status of their staff? This article suggests that recent jurisprudence does create this responsibility. The article starts, first, by discussing the much-awaited Taylor Review, released in July 2017. This purported to address the problems of employment rights and tax in the software-driven ‘gig’ economy. Four main groups of Taylor’s recommendations were to relabel employment statuses and write more secondary legislation, reform tax, cut paid holidays and introduce new ‘soft’ labour rights. These proposals do not address the real issues. Second, this article explains why a test for employment status highlighted by Taylor—‘mutuality of obligation’—has not formed part of binding UK Supreme Court jurisprudence since Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher. Third, it discusses what the Taylor Review did not: the problem of misrepresentation of employment status, which has become closely associated with the gig economy. In October 2017, the Supreme Court issued a path-breaking judgment that changed the requirements for fraud cases, aligning the tests for civil and criminal fraud and therefore making fraud claims easier. This is relevant because of the very serious finding, in Aslam v Uber BV [2017] IRLR 4, [96] by the Employment Tribunal that Uber provided an ‘excellent illustration … of “armies of lawyers” contriving documents in their clients’ interests which simply misrepresent the true rights and obligations on both sides’. This raises the question of whether ‘contriving’ to ‘misrepresent’ something enables fraud claims, either by staff who seek employment rights or by public authorities for tax receipts or social security contributions.

M3 - Article

JO - INDUSTRIAL LAW JOURNAL

JF - INDUSTRIAL LAW JOURNAL

SN - 0305-9332

ER -

View graph of relations

© 2018 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454