Tag Archives: v

Should voluntary overtime be included when calculating holiday pay?

Another decision has been handed down to clarify – or complicate – the position on which aspects of pay should be included when calculating an employee’s entitlement to holiday pay. The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland (“CA”) has held that voluntary overtime is not necessarily excluded from the calculation of holiday pay for the … Continue Reading

What is an ‘establishment’ for collective redundancy consultation purposes?

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 … Continue Reading

European Court confirms obesity can be a disability under EU law

In our previous blog, “Are obese workers protected from discrimination” , we confirmed the advocate general’s opinion in the case of Kaltoft v Municipality of Billund (case C-354/13) that while obese workers were not automatically covered by EU disability discrimination law, the worker may be considered to be disabled where he or she is “severely, … Continue Reading

Faced with an employee unlikely to ever return to work? What can you do?

Most employers recognise the need to treat employees who are on long-term sick leave fairly and with compassion. But this has to be balanced with the needs of the business, and sometimes it becomes clear that unfortunately an employee will never be able come back to work, and the employment relationship simply has to be brought … Continue Reading

TUPE service provision change – look at what is going on ‘on the ground’, as well as the contract

In the recent case of Lorne Stewart plc v Hyde and others, the EAT made clear that it is important not to get side-tracked by the details of formal written contracts which are in place between the parties before and after a potential TUPE transfer, if such details do not reflect reality. Rather, it is essential … Continue Reading

Service provision changes: Is an employee who works only for one client an “organised grouping of employees”?

In Seawell Ltd v Ceva Freight (UK) Ltd and another UKEATS/0034/11, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) held that an employee who spent 100% of his time working for a single client was not an “organised grouping of employees” for the purposes of regulation 3(3)(a)(i) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employees) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”). Therefore … Continue Reading

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 … Continue Reading

TUPE: Service Provision Changes and what activities transfer

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held in Johnson Controls v Campbell and Anor that there was no service provision change under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”) where a centralised taxi booking service was brought back in-house by the client. Although the client was still undertaking the activity of booking taxis, … Continue Reading

‘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 … Continue Reading

Service provision changes: UK EAT gives guidance on the meaning of an “organised grouping of employees”

In the case of Eddie Stobart v Moreman & Others the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has provided welcome guidance on the meaning of “organised grouping of employees” for the purposes of a “service provision change” under regulation 3(3)(a)(i) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employees) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”). A group of employees who happened to … Continue Reading

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 … Continue Reading

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

UK EAT comments on cost-plus approach in religious discrimination decision

This post was written by Lee Howard. A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal decision, Cherfi v G4S Security Services Ltd [2011], deals with indirect religious discrimination and offers employers further guidance on how they might deal the issue of time off work for reasons concerning religion. It may also aid those seeking to justify ostensibly discriminatory … Continue Reading

High court considers validity of a ‘no show’ clause

The High Court decision of Tullett Prebon Group Ltd v Ghaleb El Hajjali will be of interest to all employers who recruit highly specialised senior employees. The decision considers the enforceability of a liquidated damages “no show” clause, and how damages should be calculated where an employee changes his mind about joining a prospective employer, … Continue Reading
LexBlog