The Advocate General has given a preliminary opinion in the case of USDAW & Wilson v Woolworths and others (“the Woolworths case”) on the question of whether there is a requirement to aggregate the number of employees across different locations to meet the thresholds for collective consultation obligations (in England and Wales, of 20 employees
Holiday pay – five things you should know when calculating holiday pay
Holiday pay is often a tricky issue for employers and one which seems to be changing constantly. In the light of several new cases discussing holiday pay which have been reported over the summer and in the last couple of weeks, we take the opportunity to round up the legal developments, and set out five things employers should know before deciding how much holiday pay an employee may be entitled to on termination of their employment.…
Continue Reading Holiday pay – five things you should know when calculating holiday pay
It’s not quite “all change” for TUPE – service provision change provisions will not be repealed after all
Since 2011, the Government has been considering proposals to amend the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”). Following an initial call for evidence and subsequent consultation, the Government yesterday confirmed the amendments it intends to make to TUPE.…
Continue Reading It’s not quite “all change” for TUPE – service provision change provisions will not be repealed after all
December 31, 2012 Deadline to Correct Certain Section 409A Payment Timing Errors
Our Executive Compensation & Employee Benefits colleagues John D. Martini, Jeffrey G. Aromatorio, Jenny C. Baker and Allison Sizemore wrote a client alert regarding the December 31, 2012 deadline for correcting certain errors in the written provisions of nonqualified deferred compensation arrangements that provide payments that are contingent on the recipient’s execution of a…
Back from the Brink: California Employers Finally Get Clarity on Meal/Rest Breaks
This post was also written by Seth C. Carmack.
On April 12, 2012, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Ct. (Hohnbaum), No. S166350. The decision clarified several important issues regarding California employers’ obligations in connection with meal and rest breaks for non-exempt employees. It also offered guidance regarding the certification of meal and rest period wage and hour class actions.…
Continue Reading Back from the Brink: California Employers Finally Get Clarity on Meal/Rest Breaks
‘Costs plus’ approach to justifying discrimination in the UK endorsed by the Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal in Woodcock v North Cumbria Primary Care Trust has ruled that the savings of costs alone will not, without more, amount to a legitimate aim so as to justify discrimination. In this case, Mr Woodcock was dismissed by reason of redundancy just before his 50th birthday in order to avoid his qualifying for significant enhanced early retirement terms. The Court of Appeal (CA) held that this treatment amounted to discrimination by reason of age but was justified since the legitimate aim of dismissing him was to give effect to his redundancy and to save costs. The aim of the dismissal at that particular age was not purely to save costs and so was justifiable.…
Continue Reading ‘Costs plus’ approach to justifying discrimination in the UK endorsed by the Court of Appeal
Expiry of fixed term contracts and UK collective redundancy consultation
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has provided guidance on when the expiry of a fixed term contract will count toward the number of dismissals proposed by an employer that triggers collective redundancy consultation obligations.
The EAT held that employees who were dismissed by virtue of the expiry of their fixed term contracts were not dismissed for “redundancy” under the wider definition of that concept contained in s.195 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULCRA) and therefore their dismissals did not count toward the number of dismissals required to trigger collective redundancy consultation obligations under s.188 TULCRA minimum 20 employee threshold. (University of Stirling v University and College Union). This decision should be treated with caution since not all dismissals on expiry of fixed term contracts will fall outside s.188 obligations. Such dismissals may ‘count’ when the dismissals are part of a wider exercise involving job losses and in other circumstances where the dismissal does not relate to the employee’s performance or conduct.…
Continue Reading Expiry of fixed term contracts and UK collective redundancy consultation
New challenges for global groups with French operations
De-industrialization is the hot theme of the presidential campaign, regardless of the political spectrum. Solutions brought forward by candidates are more or less concrete, more or less likely. They show little if any understanding of how globalization has made the world a village, through internet and its ability to give instant access to comparative data and decide to move business to welcoming countries.
But in the backyard of their courts, Appeal judges have silently elaborated what can be qualified as the dismissal visa. No more pay off of employees unfairly made redundant. Now the key question is to know whether the judges will authorize a French or foreign group to shut down a plant, downsize staff or disinvest or will merely tell them to keep their workers on the payroll.…
Continue Reading New challenges for global groups with French operations
California Court of Appeal Green Lights Repetitive Class Action Litigation
Most employers assume that if they successfully defeat a plaintiff’s motion for class certification in a wage and hour class action, the same class claims cannot be raised again in another case. On January 18, 2012, however, the California court of appeal in Bridgeford v. Pacific Health Corp, 2012 WL 130615, dashed that commonly held assumption.
Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Green Lights Repetitive Class Action Litigation
Employment Tribunal respondents’ names and addresses to be published
The Deputy Information Commissioner has recently ordered the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) to disclose names and addresses of the respondents to all Employment Tribunal claims lodged since October 2004. The Information Commissioner considers that, on balance, the public interest was best served by disclosing the information. This effect of this order is that anyone can now make a similar application under the Freedom of Information Act and have access to all respondents’ names and addresses in Tribunal proceedings. Whether in the “information age”, this will have any adverse impact on businesses, as was argued by BERR, remains to be seen.
Continue Reading Employment Tribunal respondents’ names and addresses to be published