job and the wrongful conduct to render vicarious liability appropriate. Mr Major owned the company, was its most senior employee and directing mind, and had full control over how he conducted his role. When he lectured his staff at the afterparty, he was wearing his metaphorical Managing Director’s hat and establishing his authority in that role. Additionally, that party was not a purely social event happening to involve colleagues but a follow-on from an organised work event attended by most of the company’s employees, where the company paid for taxis and drinks. In those circumstances, there was a sufficient connection between Mr Major’s wrongful conduct and his role, and accordingly the company was vicariously liable for his actions.
Back to Contents
Morrisons loses payroll data breach challenge 24 October 2018
Morrisons has lost its challenge to a High Court ruling that it is liable for a data breach that saw thousands of its employees' details posted online.
In 2014 Andrew Skelton sent information about staff salaries, bank details and National Insurance numbers to several newspapers and posted it on data sharing websites, in a data breach which cost the company more than £2m to rectify.
Skelton, who had worked as a senior internal auditor at Morrisons' head office, was subsequently jailed for eight years in July 2015 at Bradford Crown Court.
In December 2015, Morrisons was awarded £170,000 in compensation from Skelton having made a legal claim for the losses which it suffered.
Since then, serving and former staff employed at Morrisons’ supermarkets and its Kiddicare, Farmers Boy and Woodhead subsidiaries lodged an application for a Group Litigation Order (GLO) in 2015, and the number of individuals demanding compensation more than doubled – from just over 2,000 to more than 5,500. A two-week trial to determine the issue of Morrisons’ liability for the data leak took place in October 2017. Judgment was handed down on 1 December 2017 and in a landmark ruling, the Court found that Morrisons was legally responsible for the data leak.
Morrisons appealed the decision and the Court of Appeal has now upheld the original decision.
According to BBC News Morrisons has said it would now appeal to the Supreme Court.
Back to Contents
Part Time Workers: Parity of Pay 7 November 2018
The Court of Appeal has ruled that it was less favourable treatment to pay a part-time worker 50% of full pay for being on duty 53.5% of full time hours.
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin for providing this update on the British Airways v Pinaud appeal case.
Mrs Pinaud worked a part-time contract of 14 days on and 14 days off. She had to be available to work 130 days each year. A comparable full-time worker would have been on duty for six days and off for three, which amounted to 243 available days a year. Mrs Pinaud therefore had to be available for 53.5% of the days of a full-time worker, but she received only 50% of the pay. BA said Mrs Pinaud actually worked fewer days than her comparator.
The Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals
Payroll: need to know
cipp.org.uk
Page 105 of 598
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker