Holiday Pay. The issue of whether employees on long-term sickleave are entitled to four weeks' statutory paid holiday under the Working Time Regulations 1998 has been referred to the ECJ. The Court of Appeal decided in April 2005 that employees on long-term sick are not entitled to holiday pay whilst absent on long-term sickleave. The appeal to the House of Lords was due to be heard at the end of October, but they have decided to seek guidance from the ECJ due to the complexity of the issues in ...
|
Unfair Dismissal - Constructive dismissal
The Respondent employer represented to its recognised trade union representatives that if it were to close its immigration service at Waterloo International Terminal it would consult pursuant to a procedure incorporated in its employee handbook. But instead, following legal advice, it relied on a contractual Mobility Clause. This was a fundamental breach of the ClaimantsÆ contracts, which they accepted as repudiation, and resigned promptly having taken time to allow the Respondent to remedy its ...
|
Whether a policy expressed not to be part of the contract had acquired contractual status.
|
Equal Pay Act - Out of time
A hearing which was to be about whether the Claimant was to be warned as to costs and pay a deposit turned into a hearing as to a strike out. Apart from this procedural issue the EAT agreed with the Appellant that to strike out a case when there were a number of crucial issues of fact – which could only be resolved by an oral hearing – was inappropriate. The Appeal was allowed. The EAT did not consider it right to decide whether the Appellant should pay a deposit and he warned about costs but co ...
|
Unfair Dismissal: Step 1 letters. Draper v Mearns, EAT: The employee was dismissed when it was discovered about to drive a company van after drinking alcohol, in breach of a 'zero tolerance' rule. The step 1 letter referred only to 'conduct which fails to reasonably ensure health and safety of oneself and others'. The EAT held that this was sufficient to comply with step 1 of the statutory dismissal procedure, adding that where the wording is ambiguous the tribunal is entitled to consider the wh ...
|
Costs orders for £10,000 and £1000 did not exceed the statutory maximum order Reg 14.Order for £10000 made after striking-out order. That order was set aside by EAT and therefore costs order should also be set aside as it resulted from the striking-out order. Fresh Tribunal to consider appellan's conduct at conclusion of the case. Tribunal correct to impose ú1000 to reflect the AppellantÆs disgraceful conduct at the Tribunal hearing which necessitated a further costs hearing.
|
Unlawful Deduction from Wages
As the Employment Tribunal had found that the Respondent had the right to take the Claimant off stand-by duties on health and safety grounds, the consequent reduction in pay was not an unauthorised deduction. He was then paid what was properly payable under Employment Rights Act 1996 s 13(3). The Employment Tribunal also relied on authorities without giving the Claimant the opportunity to make submissions, and the authorities did not support the Employment Tribunals reasoning. Albion Hotel appli ...
|
The claimant comes from Aberdeen. He was employed by Ben Line Steamers and his employment was transferred, ultimately, to the respondents, a company registered in Singapore. The respondents were a subsidiary of a Swedish company. From a date in 1998 until it determined that the claimant's place of employment was not within Great Britain as that was not where he carried out his work. On appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal, after having considered the decision of the House of Lords in Lawson v ...
|
The appellant local authority had carried out a be
they had looked only at the disadvantages to the employees. Further they had, in reaching their conclusion that the dismissals were unfair, substituted their own view for that of the reasonable employer. The case was remitted to a freshly constituted tribunal to consider whether or not those dismissals for some other substantial reason were fair or not. Circumstances in which the tribunal ChairmanÆs failure to answer a relevant question in response to a Burns/Barke order on the sift weighed with ...
|
The claimant had been successful in establishing that he was discriminated against on grounds of disability. He had appealed successfully against the tribunal's award of compensation and the Inner House of the Court of Session had pronounced an order remi
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |