Mr Morgan just 9 hours between the end of his meeting and the start of his night shift. The employees argued they should, for the purposes of regulation 10(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, be given 11 hours rest between the carrying out of their functions at the meetings and attending on shift. The employer disputed the meetings were 'working time'. The EAT confirmed that regulation 2(1)(a) of the WTR requires that each of the three elements in the definition of working time must be satisfied. Thus, the worker must be (i) working (ii) at the employer's disposal and (iii) carrying out his activities or duties. The employment tribunal found the Claimants were 'working' when at meetings. But it had adopted too narrow an approach to conditions (ii) and (iii). The Claimants were not, said the EAT, required to be under the employer's specific control and direction in terms of the carrying out of their duties or activities. A wider approach was allowed, which could include where an employer has required an employee to be in a specific place and to hold himself out as ready to work for the employer's benefit, which might include attending a trade union or health and safety meetings, allowing for a broad understanding of 'benefit'. Also, there was no requirement that the activities or duties required were those for which the Claimants were employed under their employment contracts. If they were engaged in activities that were (in the broader sense) for the benefit of the employer, arose from the employment relationship, and done with the employer's knowledge at and in an approved time and manner, that could be sufficient. Their claims were therefore remitted to the employment tribunal for re-consideration, applying this broader approach to 'working time'
Collective Redundancy Consultation - Establishment 20 May 2015
Is a single retail store capable of being an 'establishment' for collective redundancy consultation purposes?
Yes, held the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Lyttle v Bluebird , answering a reference from a Northern Ireland Industrial Tribunal, arising from the closure of some Bonmarché retail outlets across the UK in 2012.
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin for the following case summary.
More precisely, the ECJ held that for the purposes of Article 1 (1)(a) of the Directive on Collective Redundancies, which determines the triggers for collective consultation 'it is the entity to which the workers made redundant are assigned to carry out their duties that constitutes the 'establishment''. This decision follows the Court's recent decision in the Woolworths and Ethel Austin cases, holding that the definition of 'establishment' was the entity to which workers are assigned to carry out their duties, so this may be the end of line for the 'establishment' question. The Court also held that the meaning of 'establishment' was the same in Article 1 (1)(a)(i) and 1 (1)(a)(ii) of the Directive (providing consistency over the two broad methods for implementing the Directive), The Court noted that if collective consultation were triggered by the number of staff at risk across an undertaking, rather than individual establishments, it could result in employers incurring very different costs in informing and consulting staff, contrary to the EU's objective of providing comparable cost burdens across Member States, and result in individual employees at remote locations coming inappropriately within the scope of collective consultation (para. 44 & 45).
Pay Deductions for Strike 28 May 2015
How much pay can an employer withhold for a day's strike by a salaried striker?.
1/260th held the Court of Appeal in Hartley v King Edward VI College , not 1/365th.
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin for the following case summary.
The appeal arose from a County Court claim by three striking teachers, alleging that their employer had withheld more pay than it was entitled to in response to a day's strike. This was not a deduction from wages case as a 'deduction' presupposes an employer not paying a sum which has been earned. Here the sum was never earned, the dispute being how to calculate it.
The College based its calculation on a notional 5 day week, 52 weeks a year, making the sum 1/260th of annual salary; the teachers argued that the nature of their contract and section 2 of the Apportionment Act 1870 meant
CIPP Policy News Journal
25/04/2016, Page 68 of 453
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker