The end result is that all of the Claimants' grounds of appeal were dismissed and one of the Respondent's cross appeals was allowed. All claims were therefore dismissed.
According to People Management, a number of experts have said firms will see the judgment as positive because a ruling in the opposite direction could have seen many employers pulling their enhanced maternity packages.
Back to Contents
Incorporation of Collective Agreement to reduce overtime pay 3 June 2019
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that a term in a collective agreement reducing overtime pay was not apt for incorporation into an individual employment contract.
Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin explains in laymen’s terms the detail of the ruling.
In the case of Lozaique v Tesco Stores Ltd, Mr Lozaique was employed by Tesco in security. His contract of employment required him to do 20 hours of overtime per week, for which he was entitled to be paid at time and a half. This was confirmed by a letter to him in October 2005. Tesco argued that a subsequent collective agreement was incorporated into his contract of employment, and that, as a result, the rate for 12 hours of that overtime had been reduced from time and a half to single time. Mr Lozaique brought a claim to recover the shortfall in pay via an unlawful deduction from wages claim in the employment tribunal. The tribunal rejected the claim and decided the collective agreement was incorporated into the contract, including the section on pay. The tribunal held that the agreement was therefore effective to reduce Mr Lozaique’s overtime entitlement. The EAT allowed Mr Lozaique’s appeal. While the collective agreement was expressly incorporated in the contract of employment, the revised term about overtime premiums was not apt for incorporation. The terms in the collective agreement which referred to premiums did not, as a matter of construction, apply to the 20 hours of overtime which were provided for in the 2005 letter. Mr Lozaique had an obligation to do this overtime, and the overtime was not therefore voluntary. The terms about premiums could not therefore displace the provisions of the 2005 letter promising 20 hours of guaranteed overtime. The tribunal had erred in law in not asking whether each of the relevant terms of the collective agreement was apt for incorporation into the employment contract. The tribunal assumed that, having decided that the collective agreement was incorporated into Mr Lozaique’s contract, it followed that every term of the collective agreement was also incorporated. That, said the EAT, “was a non sequitur”.
Nor had the contractual position changed by custom and practice. It is settled law that a term implied by custom and practice cannot contradict an express term of the contract (here, the 2005 letter).
Back to Contents
PSNI holiday pay case could have UK-wide implications 25 June 2019
The decision by the Court of Appeal in Belfast on the PSNI's liability for historic holiday pay could ultimately have repercussions for employers elsewhere in the UK.
Out-Law News from Pinsent Masons has reported that as a result of Northern Ireland not enacting legislation to mirror the two year cap on holiday claims in force in Great Britain since July 2015, employers in the region have relied upon the three month gap rule set out in the Bear Scotland case to try to limit historic liability on holiday pay claims.
The Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals
Payroll: need to know
cipp.org.uk
Page 107 of 629
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker