Articles by ‘Matthew Hendra’

The UK has a legal framework to protect disabled people, including an obligation on all employers to remove disadvantages experienced by disabled people in the workplace. While the percentage of disabled people in work…

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has overturned a Tribunal decision and found that ‘gender-critical beliefs’ are protected philosophical beliefs under the Equality Act 2010. In their judgement the EAT confirmed they were not expressing an opinion on the debate or changing any of the legal protections available to transgender people.

In this essential immigration update we look at the addition of the Senior Care Worker role to the Shortage Occupation List and what this means for care providers. We also provide an update on Right to Work Checks and the EU Settlement Scheme.

The Supreme Court today (19 March 2021) gave care providers a lifeline, saying that they do not have to pay staff the National Minimum Wage when working ‘sleep-in’ shifts.

The Supreme Court (“SC”) has found that Uber’s drivers are to be classed as workers and not, as Uber has tried to argue, self-employed contractors. There is a lot of commentary in the employment law world that hails this as a really big decision; one piece said the decision creates “waves and not just ripples” in employment law. But putting aside the technicalities, is the hype justified? Is this really a big decision that employers and HR professionals need to take seriously?

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed Uber’s appeal and upheld the previous decisions that their drivers are workers, and not self-employed contractors. The following is a summary of the decision, and we will be giving a fuller account shortly.

The Government has published guidance on workers’ entitlement to holiday and holiday pay whilst furloughed.

Matthew Hendra from our Employment team takes a look at the latest forecast and helps you understand what employers need to do to keep their employees safe.

A couple of recent discrimination cases have dealt with employees who do not have a “protected characteristic” (age, marriage and civil partnership, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation or disability). These employees have alleged that they have been discriminated against because of their association with someone who does. This is called associated discrimination.