NEWS & ANALYSIS FMJ.CO.UK
LEGAL VIEW - EMPLOYMENT
6 MAY 2019
EVENT MARKS A WAKE-UP
CALL TO FMS TO ADDRESS
SINGLE USE PLASTIC
A special event, The Last Straw: single use plastic in the built
environment, which was held recently at the RICS headquarters by the
IFMA UK team and FMJ, featured leading environmental campaigners – with
a call to arms for FMs to use their roles in helping to outlaw single use plastic
from the workplace.
Summing up the speedy trajectory of plastic from an innovation into a
worldwide threat over the space of just a couple of decades, Greenpeace UK’s
Will McCallum said: “A material that started out as hygienic, durable and useful
which we thought was going to provide us with a world of solutions, has spread
and become a real problem.” He described how it has been found everywhere
around the world, from the frozen Antarctic to mango trees in the tropics.
Amy Meek, the articulate teenager from Kids Against Plastic, reminded the
adults in the room that “Us kids are tired of waiting for the adults to do the
work for us. We don’t know the long-term impact of plastic pollution, but we do
know this, if we all do our bit now, we can stop this problem before it’s too late.
But we’re very close to the tipping point. Please do everything you can to take
meaningful and urgent action to protect the environment, and aim to leave it in a
better state than you found it, for future generations to enjoy and protect.”
Natalie Fee of City To Sea who
campaigns to address marine plastic
pollution, revealed that 85 per cent of
workers wanted to do something about
the problem. She also remarked that
given FMs ability to influence behaviours
at work, she’s already working within
the sector to help introduce refillable
bottles into organisations, alongside the
installation of water fountains.
Summing up the challenge, Anthony
Law, MD at Churchill said: “Single use
plastic is as strategic as it gets, and if
not solved, will a ect our children, our
children’s children, our oceans and our planet. And even if all we care about is
our bottom line, it will a ect that too.”
He concluded: “How can we expect to appeal to the next generation - if we
don’t seem to care about them? We have a decision to make, ignore today and
hope someone else sorts it out or use it as inspiration to drive some change
within our own organisations.”
IFMA UK and FMJ aim to return to this subject in a future event where we’ll
concentrate on the practical ways FM can begin to make a real di erence in the
fight against single use plastic.
JOINT EMPLOYER STATUS
– IMPLICATIONS OF THE
CORDANT CASE FOR
OUTSOURCING IN THE
FM SECTOR
By Tar Tumber, HR Consultant
International Workplace
A group of 75 outsourced workers supplied to the University of
London by the service provider, Cordant Security, have failed in
their legal challenge to access the same terms and conditions as
staff employed directly by the University.
The group, which included receptionists, security guards, post
room staff and porters, were represented by the Independent
Workers Union of Great Britain (IWGB), who argued that
although Cordant was the direct employer of the outsourced
staff , the University, as the client being serviced by the staff ,
was the actual party controlling not only what the workers did
day-to-day, but also the pay, terms and conditions they were
receiving, whilst avoiding the legal responsibilities of being an
employer.
IWGB further argued that it was unfair that the outsourced
staff worked alongside staff directly employed by the University
on signifi cantly lesser terms and conditions but in the same
working environment. The union alleged the University was the
‘de-facto’ employer and applied to represent the staff in order to
collectively bargain with the University on employment terms.
This is the basic premise of the ‘joint-employer’ concept,
widely recognised in the US, but not the UK, that employees can
compel client companies, evidenced as having ‘suffi cient control’
over them, to enter into collective bargaining agreements
alongside the actual employer.
The University had clearly stated that it is the client in this
situation, and had outsourced the service provision to Cordant,
who employed and supplied the staff on the basis of a normal
outsourcing arrangement. The University did not directly employ
the staff ; ‘controlled’ them only insofar as a client normally
would in an outsourcing arrangement; and referred back to
Cordant if and when service issues arose, leaving Cordant
to maintain the employer relationship with the staff . The
University also argued that extending union rights to outsourced
workers would ‘remove the benefi ts of outsourcing’.
The staff organised the biggest strike in UK higher education
history in April 2018, resulting in the University committing to
review the service and taking some elements back in-house.
The case was heard at the High Court on 26 February 2019.
The IWGB’s barrister argued that Article 11 of the European
Convention on Human Rights required “that all workers, via
their trade union, have a practical and eff ective right to collective
bargaining”.
The University’s legal team argued that the IWGB members’
Article 11 rights were not engaged as the Article does not confer
rights to bargain collectively with anyone who is not the
workers’ employer.
Mr Justice Supperstone, who heard the case at the High Court,
reserved his judgment at the time, but on 25 March 2019, he
rejected the IWGB’s arguments and eff ectively closed down the
joint employer concept. Employee liabilities will remain with
Cordant, as the employer. The University has already committed
to reviewing services and taking some back in-house so this
is likely to progress regardless. Both clients and outsourced
providers would be wise to review the ‘real-life’ outsourcing
arrangements in order to mitigate and minimise the likelihood
of a claim being raised against them in the future. The IWGB has
already committed to continuing this fi ght for equal terms.
Read the case in full at https://bit.ly/2PGUkKB
/2PGUkKB