In 2018 a group of postmasters brought a claim in the employment tribunal which argued they were workers of the Post Office and therefore entitled to holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998 (WTR). The tribunal heard at a preliminary hearing the question of worker status based on a sample of 10 claimants of the 120 named claimants.

The tribunal found that the postmasters were in a position of dependence on the Post Office and also subject to its control. This was based on their contractual terms being decided by the Post Office and rules which had to be followed in branch regarding the sale of products. However, the tribunal found that the contracts did not require personal service.

This decision was based on the fact that postmasters could and often did delegate to assistants, and whilst some postmasters did offer a level of personal service, this was not a requirement of the job.

The tribunal considered case law which confirmed that personal service was not required under earlier versions of the postmaster contracts and found that its conclusions were similar. As there was no requirement for postmasters to provide services personally, they were not workers for the purpose of regulation 2(1) of the WTR 1998.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6256c61f8fa8f54a922789e9/Mr_M_Baker_vs_Post_office_Ltd_.pdf

On 29 March 2022, the government announced that a new Statutory Code of Practice will be published on the use of “fire and rehire” practices to bring about changes to employees’ terms and conditions.

This is one of nine measures to protect seafarers’ rights in light of the recent large scale redundancies by P&O Ferries which took place without prior notice or consultation.

Mr Scully MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, confirmed that a draft of the Statutory Code of Practice on dismissal and re-engagement will be published and representations, including from trade unions, will be considered in accordance with section 204 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA).

Advice published by ACAS in November 2021 suggests that employers should fully consult their workforces and make every effort to reach agreement on any contract changes, noting that fire and rehire is an extreme step that can damage staff morale, trust, productivity and working relations.

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2022-03-30/150179

The EAT held that the employment tribunal was wrong to strike out a claim for unfair dismissal on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success because the claimant had requested redundancy.

In September 2018, care home operator HC-One Oval Ltd announced it was reducing the number of employees carrying out reception and administrative work. Ms White was provisionally selected for redundancy. Subsequently, she requested voluntary redundancy, which was accepted.

After termination of her employment, Ms White submitted a claim for unfair dismissal. She alleged that:

For these reasons, Ms White argued that the redundancy process was not genuine and that she had been targeted for dismissal. The employer disputed Ms White’s allegations. It contended that she had been fairly dismissed for redundancy at her own request and therefore that her claim should be struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The employment tribunal struck out the claim. It held that, because Ms White had requested redundancy, the employer would be able to establish the reason for, and reasonableness of, her dismissal.

However, the EAT found that the tribunal had erred in law. Had the tribunal engaged with Ms White’s case at its highest, as required, it could not have found that there was no reasonable prospect of success. If Ms White’s account of the background to the redundancy was accepted, the facts known to the decision maker might well be found to include matters other than just Ms White’s redundancy request. In addition, Ms White alleged that the redundancy process was a sham. Even if the tribunal was satisfied with the reason for dismissal, it would still need to consider the fairness of the process. There was a factual dispute here which was not suitable for summary determination. The case was remitted to the tribunal for consideration by a different judge.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/624ee7b4d3bf7f601560ba9c/Ms_N_White_v_HC-_One_Oval_Ltd__2022__EAT_56.pdf