The Living Wage

An interesting article appeared in today’s Independent about a campaign to encourage Waterstone’s, the well known high street book retailer, to pay staff the Living Wage.

As I often say to my students, when discussing the issue of pay, it is a hugely emotive issue – especially if you happen to be at the lower end of the wage scale and have difficulty getting your proper entitlement.

The idea of the employee or labourer being worthy of his or her hire is a deeply ingrained cultural norm in European and North American societies (largely underpinned by many scriptural references in both the Old and New Testaments of the Christian Bible e.g. Deuteronomy 24: 15 and Matthew 20: 8).

The employer, of course, has a contractual duty to pay her employees in return for them providing services.

A link to the article can be found below:

‘We should insist that staff in bookshops are fairly paid’
https://edition.independent.co.uk/editions/uk.co.independent.issue.290319/data/8843991/index.html

As the article notes:

“Paying the living wage also makes sense from a business perspective. The Living Wage Foundation said that 93 per cent who paid the wages had seen benefits in retention and motivation of staff, and company reputation.”

As the Living Wage Foundation emphasises the real Living Wage is £10.55 for those working in London and £9 for those working across the rest of the UK. As we shall see, the UK Government introduced its own version of the Living Wage in 2016, but this is less generous. This was effectively a higher National Minimum Wage rate for people aged over 25.

As the Foundation states:

“The real Living Wage rates are higher because they are independently-calculated based on what people need to get by. That’s why we encourage all employers that can afford to do so to ensure their employees earn a wage that meets the costs of living, not just the government minimum.”

A link to the website of the Living Wage Foundation can be found below:

https://www.livingwage.org.uk/

The National Minimum Wage

The introduction of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 ensured that workers must receive a basic hourly wage depending on their age.

One of the most important changes to the National Minimum Wage Scheme since February 2005 is the inclusion of young workers i.e. young persons aged 16 and 17 years old. Previously, these individuals were not covered by the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. The British Government, however, finally accepted the recommendation of the Low Pay Commission that the Scheme should be extended to young workers.

The Living Wage

In many respects, the debate about the National Minimum Wage has moved on from the late 1990s when organizations such as the Conservative Party, the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors were uniformly hostile to its introduction by the first Labour Government of Tony Blair (1997-2001) on the grounds that immense damage would be done to the British economy. These fears were not realized and the minimum wage has become an accepted feature of British employment rights. The debate concerns the introduction of the Living Wage.

The Living Wage Foundation actively calls on employers to pay an enhanced income ensuring a basic standard of living. The Labour Party had promised to introduce a Living Wage if elected to form the next UK Government in 2015 and it was thought that, with the Party’s defeat at the last General Election, the idea would be placed on ice during the next Parliamentary term. It was therefore somewhat surprising when George Osborne, the former Conservative Chancellor of Exchequer announced, during his 2015 Autumn Statement, that the Coalition Government intended to introduce a National Living Wage in April 2016.

From 1 April 2016, under the National Living Wage, employers had to pay workers over the age of 25 (and who are not in the first year of an apprenticeship), a minimum hourly rate of £7.20. These individuals must work 2 or more hours a day for 8 or more consecutive weeks of the year. There was no requirement to pay the National Living Wage to volunteers, interns and apprentices – as well as contractors on the supply side. Critics of the Coalition Government were quick to point out that the statutory rate was less than what was understood by the real Living Wage recommended by the Living Wage Foundation (i.e. £7.85 per hour or £9.15 inside London). The Coalition Government had stated that it was committed to raising the National Living Wage by 2020.

From 6 April 2019, the National Minimum Wage will rise from £7.83 per hour to £8.21. The real Living Wage for 2019-20, however, has been set at an hourly rate of £9 outside London and £10.55 inside London.

Employers who refuse to pay the National Living Wage will face enforcement action similar to that already carried out in relation to the National Minimum Wage.

There is no doubt that the Living Wage is an idea whose time has come. It is worth noting that many employers already pay their workers the real Living Wage on a voluntary basis and proudly publicise this fact.

The concept is not without its critics and the BBC reported on 1 April 2016 that the independent Office of Budget Responsibility had calculated that as many as 60,000 jobs could be lost as a result of its introduction. As we have discussed, similar claims in the late 1990s were made about the introduction of the national minimum wage and these proved to be largely groundless.

The positive impact of the National Living Wage seems to be supported by research carried out by the Ulster University Economic Policy Centre. In Northern Ireland alone from 2020 onwards, 128,000 people will benefit from a pay increase due to the National Living Wage being increased.

National Living Wage to drive pay bump for thousands

More than 128,000 in NI will get a pay rise by 2020 due to the National Living Wage, study suggests.

Postscript

The Low Wage Commission published research at the end of April 2019 showing that the number of workers who do not receive the national minimum wage increased in 2018. A link to the Commission’s report can be found below:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/minimum-wage-underpayment-on-the-rise-low-pay-commission-finds

Copyright Seán J Crossan, 29 March & 26 April 2019

Mishandling redundancy?

Photo by Casey Botticello on Unsplash

An interesting story appeared in today’s Independent newspaper about allegations of racism directed against the office of Tom Watson MP, the Deputy Leader of the UK Labour Party.

The allegations (and they are allegations I would stress at this point) concern claims by a former employee of Mr Watson’s that she was unfairly selected for redundancy. Sarah Goulbourne, the former employee in question is alleging that she lost her post because of her race and/or ethnicity (she is of Afro-Caribbean descent). A person’s race is, of course, a protected characteristic in terms of the Equality Act 2010 and s/he has a right not to be subjected to unlawful discrimination or less favourable treatment.

A link to the story can be found below:


https://edition.independent.co.uk/editions/uk.co.independent.issue.270319/data/8841231/index.html

In terms of the Employment Rights Act 1996, redundancy can be a potentially fair reason for dismissing an employee – if handled correctly and fairly.

If, however, a person was selected for redundancy because they possessed a protected characteristic such as race, this would be extremely problematic for the employer. If racial discrimination could be proved by the ex-employee, the dismissal or termination of the contract on grounds of redundancy would almost certainly be automatically unfair.

Employers can access very useful advice about redundancy handling (and presumably how to get it right) from the ACAS website:

http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/1/1/Redundancy-handling-accessible-version.pdf

It will be interesting to see if the case proceeds any further.

Copyright Seán J Crossan, 27 March 2019

Special Offers!

Photo by Artem Bali on Unsplash

My students are well aware that I like to use stories which appear in the media to illustrate legal points or issues. Today, I have been reviewing some old media stories which I have distributed to students over the past few years.

One such story which caught my eye, and is always a topical issue, concerns contract law. When I begin to teach students about the basics of contract law, we often spend a bit of time discussing the difference between genuine offers and invitations to treat.

Invitation to treat

The phrase “invitation to treat” often causes puzzled expressions to appear on the faces of the individuals attending the lecture. I’ll say to them that it’s probably an expression that they have not previously heard. Even if they work in a retail environment or a customer facing role, it’s not something that they are likely to have encountered.

After all, when was the last time you walked around a supermarket or department store and heard over the PA system something like this:

Hello shoppers, we’d like to make you aware that we have a great range of invitations to treat in the store today.”

I can just imagine the reaction from most of the customers: utter and total bemusement.

What you’re much more likely to hear is the disembodied voice saying something like this:

Hello shoppers, we’d like to make you aware that we have a great range of offers in the store today.”

Now, the content of the above announcement isn’t strictly correct. The store or the retailer isn’t making you (the potential customer) an offer; they are making you an invitation to treat.

What is an invitation to treat?

This area is especially relevant for retailers and their pricing policies. Customers might think that a price ticket or indication is a firm offer issued by the retailer.

Very simply, it’s a basic form of marketing or advertising by the retailer or the trader. They wish to alert you to the fact that they have goods or services available that might be of interest. It is then up to you to go and make the offer to the appropriate representative of the trader. This offer will be considered (perhaps extremely quickly and without much in the way of negotiation) and accepted leading to a contractual agreement between the parties. An invitation to treat is a willingness by the trader/retailer to enter into negotiations with a potential customer. The trader or retailer is effectively saying: ‘I’m open to offers or make me an offer‘.

It’s been well established law for some time that goods displayed on shelves or in shop windows are not offers to the general public capable of acceptance, but rather they should be seen for what they are: invitations to treat (see Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (1953) and Fisher v Bell (1961)) .

Misleading price indications

What if the retailer or trader applies the wrong prices to a product? Does the customer have the right to hold the seller to this price – even if it’s a mistake?

This can be a particularly acute problem for retailers and traders which use the internet or other digital platforms to advertise and sell goods. You only have to think about some of the big internet traders to realise that keeping track of the prices on every product sold by them must represent a really tough operational challenge.

  • What if prices are not kept up to date?
  • What about data input error where someone keys in the wrong price and is totally unaware of this?
  • What if the promotion (e.g. a discount) applies to only a small group of products or a particular geographical area?

These have all been known to happen to retailers and traders who use the internet or other digital media.

We’re now living in a more hi-tech age where lots of traders will advertise goods and services on the internet, but these platforms should be seen as the virtual equivalent of the high street trader’s shelves or shop window. Even if prices are affixed to certain products or services, the customer should always be wary. These are merely an indication of what the trader would like to achieve. There is nothing, in theory, to stop the customer haggling or negotiating over the goods or services.

In traditional retail or sales environments i.e. face to face situations, the customer sales representative could quickly deal with the problem of wrongly mispriced goods. The customer might huff and puff and threaten legal action, but usually to no avail. Quite simply, the goods which were on display were invitations to treat (not offers). The customer was, in fact, making the offer which the customer sales representative was refusing to accept.

True, many retailers might choose to go ahead and sell the goods at the wrongly marked price as a gesture of goodwill because this was seen as a sensible customer relations tactic, but legally the store was not obliged to do this. Obviously, if there was a really big price discrepancy, even the most customer centred business might choose to draw the line somewhere (I suppose all organisations have their bottom line).

In sales generated using the internet or other digital media, there is a lack of a traditional gate-keeper (a sales assistant). Transactions are processed electronically and remotely and contracts for wrongly (i.e. lower) priced goods may slip through.

Usually, but not always, the virtual retailer or trader will have an explicit term in their general contractual conditions which states that the transaction will not be binding until such time as the customer receives a confirmatory email or other form of message.

Legal consequences

Although a store might not be liable to a customer for misleading price indications or statements under the law of contract, there are potential criminal consequences. The store could be prosecuted under criminal law and fined for misleading consumers. These laws are now contained in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

Please see link to the story about the Co-op getting its pricing policy wrong:

Co-op chain accidentally introduces 20% discount at stores

A supermarket chain accidentally introduces a 20% discount at 140 stores instead of just at one branch – costing it thousands in lost revenue.

Conclusion

Contrary to popular opinion, advertisements displayed in newspapers, magazines, trade journals and on the internet are not offers, but are regarded as invitations to treat. The offer is to be made by the consumer in response to the advertisement. The advertiser is at liberty to accept or decline any offers potential customers might choose to make.

An invitation to treat can take the following forms: goods in a shop window display, on a shop shelf or in a catalogue, goods exposed for sale at an auction or via the internet. The offer can be made by taking goods to the checkout (real or virtual) or requesting them from the shop assistant, it is then up to the advertiser or the shop assistant to decide whether to accept or refuse the offer. A shop assistant does not have to give a customer a reason for refusing to accept an offer and is not bound by the marked price on the goods. If, for instance, you happen to be under 18 years of age and you attempt to purchase alcohol from your local supermarket, the assistant will be well within her rights to refuse to accept your offer to purchase these goods.

Copyright Seán J Crossan, 27 March 2019

Nemo dat quod non habet!

Photo by Jiapeng Guang on Unsplash

What is the legal position if goods are stolen from their true owner? Can a thief pass good title (ownership) to an innocent third party? Obviously, someone who knowingly purchases stolen goods cannot obtain good title to them. Such a purchaser will have acted in bad faith and will probably be guilty of the crime of reset.

In Scotland, we often use the maxim or saying nemo dat quod non habet i.e. if you’re not the owner (or someone authorised by the owner), you cannot transact in the goods and pass ownership or title to an innocent third party.

A number of stories have appeared in the media in the last few days which have made me think about the possible application of the legal principle of nemo dat quod non habet.

The first story concerned an attempt by the Republic of Italy to have a stolen painting returned, which is believed to have been taken by the Nazis during World War II:

The Uffizi Gallery has replaced it with a copy. The exact location of the original is a mystery.

Might this Nazi-stolen painting be returned?

The second story concerned the theft of a Picasso painting which occurred slightly more recently:

Stolen Picasso painting found by ‘art’s Indiana Jones’ after 20 years

http://news.sky.com/story/stolen-picasso-painting-found-by-arts-indiana-jones-after-20-years-11675555

Clearly, an individual who knowingly purchases stolen property from the thief or retains possession of the item(s) cannot acquire good title or ownership. The passage of the years does not diminish the fact that the goods are stolen property.

An excellent example of the legal principle of nemo dat quod non habet can be seen in the following case:

Rowland v Divall [1923] in April 1922, Divall bought an ‘Albert’ motor car from a man who had stolen it from the true owner. One month later, Divall sold the car to a dealer named Rowland for £334. Rowland repainted the car and sold it to a Colonel Railsden for £400. In September, the police seized the car from Railsden.

Held: by the English Court of Appeal that the car had to be returned to its true owner. Railsden brought a successful action to recover the price of £400 that he had paid to Rowland. Rowland, in turn, successfully sued Divall for £334.

Poor Divall, however, was not so fortunate. As he had purchased the car directly from the thief, he would need to track this person down in order to initiate an action for recovery of the purchase price. Thieves, by their very nature, tend not to hang around waiting to be caught and they have a nasty habit of vanishing into thin air.

Section 17 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015

This section of the Act provides very important protection to consumers by ensuring that a trader has the right to sell the goods which are the subject matter of the contract. In a contract of sale, this will mean that the seller must have the right to sell the goods at the time of the actual sale or, if the contract is an agreement to sell, s/he will have the right to sell the goods at the time when the property is to pass to the buyer.

Problems usually arise in this area when the consumer later discovers that the seller has supplied her with stolen goods.

In many respects, Section 17 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 is very similar to Section 12 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (which previously regulated consumer contracts for the sale of goods).

Although the Consumer Rights Act applies to transactions where the trader is only a part-owner of the goods, failure by the trader to disclose to the consumer that he is only a part-owner of the goods and, that consequently, the buyer will only be entitled to a part-share in the goods would represent a breach of Section 17.

In situations where the trader can only give a consumerbuyer a limited title to the goods, she is duty bound to inform the buyer thathe only enjoys limited rights in the property and, therefore, it will beentirely the buyer’s choice if he wishes to proceed with the transaction. Fulland frank disclosure by the trader of any limitations in respect of his titleto the goods means that, at the very least, the buyer will have made aninformed choice if he proceeds with the contract – albeit under somewhatdisadvantaged circumstances.

The main protection that Section 17 gives to theconsumer buyer is that the trader (the seller) is promising that she has theright to sell the goods to the buyer. So, if the goods supplied were stolen,then the seller would be in breach of the duty imposed by this Section of theAct and the buyer would be entitled to reclaim the whole of the purchase pricefrom the seller.

The consequences of abreach of Section 17 by a trader

A breach of Section 17(1) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 by a trader is extremely serious and this reflected in Section 19(6) of the Act as it will give the consumer the right to reject the goods.

Quiet possession

Another important protection for consumers contained in Section 17 is that she has the right to enjoy quiet possession of the goods after the contract has been implemented. Effectively, the trader promises that no third party can dispute the consumer’s right to own the goods or possess them which would disturb his enjoyment of them. Any disturbance of the consumer’s right of quiet possession by third parties will mean that a potential claim lies against the trader.

Other sales

The Sale of Goods Act 1979 applies to the following transactions:

1. Business to business sales (B2B)

2. Consumer to business sales (C2B)

3. Consumer to consumer sales (C2C)

The general rule regarding the transfer of title to corporeal moveable property (tangible, moveable property) from seller to buyer is that only the true owner of the goods (or her authorised agents) can pass ownership of the goods. A thief, for example, can almost never pass good title to a third party if the goods were stolen by him or the contract was induced by fraud (see Morrison v Robertson (1908)).

Section 12(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 offers protection to a buyer who purchases corporeal moveable property in good faith from most of the negative consequences of the nemo dat quod non habet rule. It states that in a contract of sale … there is an implied condition on the part of the seller that in the case of a sale, he has a right to sell the goods and, in the case of an agreement to sell, he will have a right to sell the goods at the time when the property is to pass. This means that the buyer will be able to sue for the return of the price of the goods from the seller (who had no right to sell them in the first place). This applies even where the buyer has used the goods.

Furthermore, Section 21 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 states that a buyer will not acquire good title to goods in a situation where the person selling them is not the owner and/or lacks the authority to sell them. In other words, the buyer cannot become the owner of the goods and the true owner will be able to reclaim the goods even from a person who bought the property in good faith.

Section 12(2)(b) states that the buyer has the right toenjoy quiet possession of the goods and any disturbance of this right by thirdparties will mean that a potential claim lies against the seller.

Section 12(3) addresses situations where the seller can only give the buyer a limited title to the goods. If such a situation applies to the sale of goods, the seller is duty bound to inform the buyer that he only enjoys limited rights in the property and, therefore, it will be entirely the buyer’s choice if he wishes to proceed with the sale. However, at least the buyer will have made an informed choice.

In many respects, the protection offered to a buyer purchasing corporeal, moveable property in good faith is remarkably similar to those rights found in the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

It will not always be possible, however, to return the stolen property to the true owner when the goods have been converted into other goods and cannot be retrieved e.g. when cattle have been stolen, slaughtered and eaten. In such situations, the true owner will have to be content with an award of damages based on the value of the property now lost to her forever.

Exceptions to Nemo dat quod non habet

The nemo dat quod non habet rule is only a general rule. Like most general rules in the law, however, there are a number of exceptions under both the common law and statute which might mean that someone who is not the true owner of the goods can pass good title to a third party. The practical effect of this is that the third party will often become the lawful owner of the goods despite the original owner’s protests.

Hopefully, buyers purchasing property in good faith which turns out to be stolen or having a defective title, will not fall into one of these exceptions to the general rule!

Conclusion

An innocent (or good faith) buyer of goods might discover, to their horror, that the property is stolen. The general rule is that a thief cannot pass good title to a third party – even if such a person is entirely honest. The rule is often expressed as nemo dat quod non habet.

Both the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 provide important legal protection to good faith buyers of stolen property (and more generally in situations where the seller’s title to goods is defective in some way).

The main protection that Section 12 (Sale of Goods Act 1979) and Section 17 (Consumer Rights Act 2015) gives to a buyer is that the seller is promising that s/he has the right to sell the goods to the buyer. So, if the goods were stolen, then the seller would be in breach of the duty imposed by the relevant legislation and the buyer would be entitled to reclaim the whole of the purchase price from the seller.

Copyright Seán J Crossan, 26 March 2019

Veganism = human cruelty?

Photo by Jon Tyson on Unsplash

Regular readers of this blog will be aware of my interest in philosophical beliefs and whether these are capable of protection in terms of the Equality Act 2010. It seems to be an area of law which is being developed on a fairly regular basis – often with pretty surprising results.

The Employment Tribunal decided, for example, in Hashman v Milton Park (Dorset) Ltd t/a Orchard Park ET /3105555/2009 that a belief in the sanctity of both human and animal life could constitute a legally protected philosophical belief.

Several of my previous entries have looked at whether veganism could be a philosophical belief. This issue could soon be decided by the outcome of an Employment Tribunal case lodged at the end of 2018 (Casamitjana v League Against Cruel Sports).

What about anti-veganism? To be honest I’d never heard of this before, but a story on Sky News caught my attention:

Veganism is human cruelty’: Protester eats raw pig’s head outside vegan festival

http://news.sky.com/story/protester-eats-raw-pigs-head-outside-vegan-festival-11674741

A YouTuber going by the name of Sv3rige ate a pig’s head outside Vegfest, a vegan festival in Brighton to draw attention to his belief that “veganism is human cruelty”.

Sv3rige’s explained his motivation to Sky News:

We did it – it was eight of us – because veganism is malnutrition and you can’t get over 15 nutrients from plants and some of us are ex-vegans who got sick because of it.”

A crass publicity stunt or a genuine attempt to highlight someone’s deeply held beliefs?

Food for thought indeed!

Copyright Seán J Crossan, 26 March 2019

Locking horns (Frustration of Contract Part 2)

Photo by Uriel Soberanes on Unsplash

In February, one of my blogs (Frustration of Contract) dealt with the circumstances surrounding the issue of frustration as a factor which could lead to termination of a contractual agreement.

One of the stories discussed in that particular blog was the dispute between Cardiff City FC and FC Nantes in respect of the tragic death of Emiliano Sala, the Argentinian footballer who had signed for the English Premiership club.

Despite Sala’s death, the French club was till demanding a portion of the transfer fee of £15 million. This led to speculation on my part as to whether frustration of contract could be an argument put forward by Cardiff.

The plot has since thickened an, today (25 March 2019), it has been reported that Cardiff City is now claiming that the transfer deal was never legally binding. The Premiership side asserts that the proper paperwork was not completed; the French side disputes this.

So, it looks as if the two clubs are going to be locking horns in what now seems to be an inevitable legal dispute.

A link to an article on the BBC website can be found below:

saw this on the BBC News App and thought you should see it:

Emiliano Sala: Cardiff set to claim transfer deal ‘not legally binding’

Cardiff City football are set to tell Fifa the deal to buy Emiliano Sala from Nantes for £15m was not legally binding.

Copyright Seán J Crossan, 25 March 2019

Strippers are workers too. Discuss.

Photo by Eric Nopanen on Unsplash

We had Lorraine Kelly and employment law in one of Friday’s blogs (Hello, I’m Lorraine and I’m definitely self-employed). Today, rather than TV personalities, we have strippers (which demonstrates the sheer breadth of this area of the law).

Anyway, a report on Sky News (Sunday 24 March 2019) highlighted the campaign by women working as strippers who wish to be classified as workers rather than self-employed individuals. A worker has, of course, a broader meaning than employee in both UK and EU employment law.

Workers enjoy, for example, protection under legislation such as the Working Time Regulations giving them access to holiday pay and minimum holiday entitlement, as well as regulating their working time (i.e. the 48 hour limit). The Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 is also an important source of legal protection for workers.

In terms of Section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, an employee is someone who has a contract of service. As I have stated in previous blogs, an employee has potential access to multiple employment rights – a situation which a worker or self-employed individual can really only dream about.

In the Sky News piece, the spokesperson for individuals providing services in the “adult entertainment” business makes an eloquent claim for greater legal rights. We hear tried and tested arguments about the level of control (arguably) which nightclubs have in relation to these individuals. This is an attempt to deploy the control test to the advantage of people working in this industry. Whether it will be a clinching argument which secures the status of worker for many people remains to be seen.

A link to the Sky News article and video can be seen below:

Strippers seek workers’ rights recognition

http://news.sky.com/video/share-11674273

This is not, however, the first time that an individual working in the “adult entertainment” industry has sought employment rights.

In Chapter 6 of Introductory Scots Law, I discuss the case of Quashie v Stringfellows Restaurants Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1735 where an individual argued that they had employment status and, therefore, the right to legal protection – principally in relation to unfair dismissal in terms of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Quashie provided services as a lap dancer to two clubs, Stringfellows and Angels, both owned by Stringfellows Restaurants Ltd over a period of about 18 months. Stringfellows decided to dispense with Quashie’s services on 9 December 2008 because the management was suspicious that she was involved with drugs while working on the premises.

Quashie submitted a claim for unfair dismissal to an Employment Tribunal. The customers paid Quashie to dance – not Stringfellows Restaurants – and she had to pay the clubs a fee for the right to dance there. There was no barrier, in theory, to Quashie accepting engagements to dance at other clubs not owned by Stringfellows Restaurants – as long as she had not made a prior booking to dance at Stringfellows or Angels.

Holidays could be taken by Quashie when she wished, but so long as she completed a form giving advance warning of her intention to do this. Quashie received a club agreement from Stringfellows Restaurants which stated that she was an independent contractor. Admittedly, Stringfellows Restaurants did put Quashie on a rota to dance on a regular basis and a failure by her (or other dancers) to turn up for these shifts meant that she would be suspended from the clubs the following week and she would not be permitted to work.

The Employment Tribunal held that there was no mutuality of obligation between the parties and that Quashie was not an employee and that the right to claim unfair dismissal (Section 94: Employment Rights Act 1996) was not available to her. Quashie appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. On appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal overturned the original decision of the Employment Tribunal and found Quashie to be an employee. Stringfellows Restaurants appealed to the English Court of Appeal.

Held: by the English Court of Appeal that the Employment Appeal Tribunal had erred and that the original Employment Tribunal decision should be reinstated: Quashie was not an employee as there was insufficient mutuality of obligation between the parties.

Conclusion

As reported in the Sky News piece, the argument being advanced that  strippers should be given worker status is clearly a more modest attempt to secure some employment rights for individuals working in this industry. It may be easier to win this argument than the contention that such individuals should be treated as employees (as occurred in Quashie). That said, it will be for judges to determine on a case by case basis who has employment status and who does not.

Postscript

In an attempt to secure better employment rights for women working in the “adult entertainment” industry, BBC Scotland reported in July 2019 that many lap dancers working in Glasgow had joined a trade union.

Please see a link to this story below:

The lap dancers who joined a union

Copyright Seán J Crossan, 25 March and 22 July 2019