With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin which summarises the case:
The Claimant fell within the exception under Regulation 16(1A) of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 because he lived in the residential home where he was employed, and the time in question was time he was entitled to spend at home.
The employment tribunal was entitled to take account of the fact that there was another night worker on duty and that in practice the Claimant was rarely called upon.
The decided cases in this particularly fact-sensitive area demonstrate that mere presence does not itself necessarily entitle a worker to the NMW for the whole shift.
Tribunal rules on pensions discrimination case 8 October 2015
The Court of Appeal has ruled against a retired worker in his bid to see his husband receive the same pay out from his pension scheme in the event of his death as a spouse of the opposite sex would be entitled to.
With thanks to Employee Benefits for a summary of this case:
In the case of Walker vs Innospec Ltd and others , with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions as an interested party on behalf of the latter, John Walker had worked at the chemicals organisation from 1980 until his retirement in 2003. As a member of Innospec’s pension scheme, Walker receives a pension of £85,000 a year. Walker and his partner entered into a civil partnership in 2006 and have since married. As he retired before the Civil Partnership Act came into effect in 2005, his partner is not entitled to receive the full spousal pension should he outlive Walker. The claimant argued that if his spouse were a widow, she would be entitled to approximately £41,000 a year through the pension scheme. As a widower, however, his partner would only be able to claim around £500 a year. He argued that this contravened EU law and the European Convention on Human Rights, and in 2012 the Employment Tribunal (ET) found in Walker’s favour.
Innospec lodged an appeal that was allowed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). The EAT overturned the ET’s decision in 2014.
Walker subsequently appealed against the EAT ruling. The EAT released its judgement on 6 October, which held in favour of Innospec on the grounds that the claim referred to a period before civil partnerships were recognised and the law could not be applied retrospectively. In his ruling Lord Justice Underhill stated: “I can understand that Mr Walker and his husband will find this conclusion hard to accept. But changes in social attitudes, and the legislation which embodies those changes, cannot fully undo the effects of the past.”
Whistleblowing: breach of contract and the public interest 23 October 2015
Can a complaint about contractual matters be in the "public interest" under the new whistleblowing provisions?
Yes, held the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in Underwood v Wincanton Plc .
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin which provides the details of the case.
One of the Claimant's claims was that he had made a protected disclosure and been subjected to a detriment by his employer. The disclosure was a written complaint made by him and three other lorry drivers that overtime was not being distributed fairly in breach of their contracts of employment.
The employment tribunal struck out the claim finding that a complaint, concerning only a group of workers about terms of their contracts, could not meet the new "public interest" test.
Overturning the employment tribunal's decision the EAT recognised that the employment tribunal's judgment had been given before any real guidance as to the meaning of "public interest" and before its decision in Chesterton
CIPP Policy News Journal
25/04/2016, Page 78 of 453
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker