Jump to content

Not3bad

Registered.
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Not3bad

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. I would state categorically that it is the latter. it has nothing to do with "clocking in and out" Therefore, I cannot accept that the employer was entitled to be given access to it.
  2. It wasn't to process the wages-It was obtained months after she had left, which opens a separate can of worms ie, why was the data still being held? The 3rd party obtains the data off anyone who visits the premises. It is data for the 3rd party. I fail to see what right the employer had to it, especially given he was the ex-employer at that point.
  3. Thanks guys-Yes, in hindsight, it was a tad vague. An employee worked for a company who were contracting at a third party company. The employee signed into the third party company every day and signed out when she left. Further on down the line, the worker left and got embroiled in a dispute over outstanding monies owed. The ex-employer contacted the third party and obtained the signing in data and argued that the hours worked were less than she was being paid for (she was working the same hours as everyone else in the department) I'm not sure if the employer had a right to the data and whether there was a breach of the DPA by the third party by passing on that data?
  4. 1. Would you class the signing in and out of a business premises as data? 2. Would you expect this information to be held by the owners of the premises and not passed on to a third party? 3. If this information was passed on to a third party, would you consider it to be a breach of the DPA? Thanks in advance
  5. I would start with the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Working Time Regulations 1998
  6. It won't set a precedent as an employment tribunal decision. Only when a case goes to an employment tribunal appeal would it be a precedent (much in the same way that case law is). There are several precedents out there already. Most employers are now aware of the risks and use the legal (but wholly immoral) loophole of an umbrella company. However, the pressure is even on these companies to operate correctly otherwise they will leave themselves open to similar claims.
  7. Hi Honeybee. Thank you for the welcome. I am delighted because Uber were creating what is known as false self employment. Their drivers were effectively employees but were acting as self employed. It meant that Uber evaded paying millions of pounds in NI contributions that could have gone into an already impoverished National Health Service. Uber also evaded their employers obligations to their drivers. These drivers have none of the rights that most people take for granted and can be dropped at a minutes notice. When that happens, debt is not far behind. HMRC are able to issue hefty fines on companies who abuse the worker status but their resources are limited. The more cases like this that are successful, the less likely these greedy employers are likely to try these short cuts.
  8. Does anyone have any thoughts or comments regarding this weeks tribunal decision whereby judges ruled that Uber drivers were employees, not self-employed? There were some very hard hitting comments from the judges regarding the company. An estimated £314 million has been lost in tax and national insurance contributions every year, whilst this operation has been on going. I am personally delighted and it is companies like Uber who are responsible for so many of their workers being driven into debt.
×
×
  • Create New...