Brexit Cost Live-in Domestic Workers the Right to the National Minimum Wage

The UK’s departure from the EU has had profound effects on aspects of employment law. As an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling made plain, one of them was to remove the legal entitlement of nannies, housekeepers and other live-in domestic workers to receive the National Minimum Wage…

Apr 28, 2023

Pexels andrea piacquadio 755049 1024x683

The UK’s departure from the EU has had profound effects on aspects of employment law. As an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling made plain, one of them was to remove the legal entitlement of nannies, housekeepers and other live-in domestic workers to receive the National Minimum Wage (NMW).

One such worker who was engaged to work in a couple’s home succeeded in an Employment Tribunal (ET) claim that she was entitled to be paid the NMW. That was on the basis that the vast majority of live-in domestic workers are women and the failure to pay her the NMW thus amounted to indirect sex discrimination. The ET reached its decision during the transition period that preceded the UK’s final exit from the EU.

The National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 and 2015 exclude domestic workers engaged in family homes from the right to receive the NMW. The ET disapplied that exclusion, however, on the basis that it was indirectly discriminatory and conflicted with Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which enshrines the right of men and women to be paid equally.

In rejecting the couple’s challenge to that ruling, the EAT saw no reason to disagree with the ET’s conclusion. However, it noted that, since Brexit took full effect on 31 December 2020, tribunals have had no power to disapply domestic legislation on the ground that it is incompatible with directly effective EU law rights. The dismissal of the appeal, therefore, did not mean that a domestic worker in the same position would now be entitled to the NMW.

Employment Judge Embarked on ‘Frolic of his Own’ – EAT Ruling

Employment judges may reconsider their initial conclusions on a case, but that does not give them licence to embark on a wholesale change of mind on the basis of arguments that have not been presented to them. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) made that point in finding that an employment judge went on a frolic of his own. The case concerned a senior employee of a global company who was seconded on a short-term basis to run its operations in Canada. After his commission payments – which in…

Victim of Workplace Race-Related Harassment Receives Compensation

Victims of workplace harassment sadly often fear the consequences of rocking the boat, but there are very good reasons why they should consult a solicitor straight away. The point was made by the case of an administrative assistant who took action after a colleague denigrated her Chinese heritage. After she mentioned her grandmother’s Chinese descent in the office, her colleague responded with the words: ‘Does she own a chip shop? All Chinese own chip shops.’ She was embarrassed, upset and…

Employment Dispute Settlement Precludes Subsequent Victimisation Claim

The vast majority of employment cases end in compromise, thus doing away with the need for a public hearing. As a Court of Appeal ruling made plain, however, great professional care is required in drafting settlement agreements in order to ensure that they do not themselves become the focus of further dispute. The case concerned a man whose race discrimination complaint against a company for which he worked for about a month was compromised on confidential terms. He accepted a sum of money in…