Leicester Police Force provided 18 weeks’ worth of maternity leave at full pay. They also offered a shared parental leave scheme to match statutory requirements. Mr. Hextall claimed that the employer’s policy put men at a disadvantage and was unlawful discrimination. The Court of Appeal upheld the same response in both cases, and that was that there was no direct discrimination on a man taking shared parental leave for childcare reasons as this was not comparable to a mother who was on leave, who would require time to recover both mentally and physically after carrying, and giving birth to, a child. They also maintained that there was nothing unusual about either of the company’s policies and rejected both claims. The Supreme Court’s refusal of permission to appeal in relation to this means that employers can continue to enhance maternity pay without the requirement to enhance shared parental pay.
Back to Contents
Reinstatement and Annual Leave 24 February 2020
If an employee is unlawfully dismissed and then re-instated by a court order, is the employee entitled under EU law to annual leave for the interval between dismissal and re-employment?
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s Employment Law Bulletin .
Yes, the employee would be entitled under EU law to annual leave for the interval between dismissal and re- employment, is the preliminary ruling of the Advocate-General to the European Court of Justice in QH & CV .
The case concerns two references, from Bulgaria and Italy, to the CJEU. Where an employee is unable to benefit from the right to paid leave due to an employer’s unlawful act (i.e. unlawful dismissal), EU law should require that the employee receive four weeks paid annual leave entitlement in the period between dismissal and re-employment, the situation being analogous to that of workers not at work due to long-term sickness absence or maternity leave, where the right to paid leave continues to apply. However, if an unlawfully dismissed worker obtains employment with a new employer in the interim, this right should not apply as the new employer would be responsible for ensuring the right to paid leave during that period. The Advocate-General’s ruling is not binding on the full Court, which may hear the full case later this year. Provided that final judgment comes during the implementation period, it will be binding in UK law. This could apply in UK law in re-instatement/re-engagement situations in unfair dismissal cases, and interim relief applications.
Back to Contents
The Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals
Payroll: need to know
cipp.org.uk
Page 123 of 629
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker