How much sharing is required for the exemption to apply?
The Court of Appeal held that an overall view is required. The central requirement is that the work is done in the context in which the worker is treated as a family member. People provided with free accommodation and meals would of course be expected to do more.
GUARANTEE PAYMENTS
12 October 2012
Where a temporary variation of employees' working hours is agreed, are the employees entitled to receive guarantee payments in place of wages for time when they would 'normally be required to work in accordance with their contract of employment'? Where a temporary variation of employees' working hours is agreed (e.g. to avoid job losses), are the employees entitled to receive guarantee payments in place of wages for time when they would 'normally be required to work in accordance with [their] contract of employment', under section 28 of the Employment Rights Act 1996?
No, says the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in Abercrombie & Ors v Aga Rangemaster Ltd .
Daniel Barnett’s Employment Law Bulletin reports:
The EAT rejected the Claimants' argument that a temporary variation of contract was not a change to 'normal' working hours. The mere fact that the variation was temporary was irrelevant. The Claimants also argued that sections 30(5) and 31(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 allow for entitlements to guarantee payments if the 'contract has been varied or a new contract has been entered into, in connection with a period of short-time working'. It was held, however, that these provisions were only concerned with the quantification of guarantee payments, not with establishing entitlement to them.
IS AN UNSIGNED CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT LEGALLY BINDING?
22 October 2012
Can an employee be bound by post termination restrictions contained within an unsigned version of a contract of employment?
Yes, says the High Court in FW Farnsworth Limited v Lacy , if the terms of that contract have been impliedly accepted by the employee.
Daniel Barnett’s Employment Law Bulletin reports:
The later contract included post-termination restrictive covenants, and a number of elective employee benefits. Mr Justice Hildyard held that the employee's act of applying for private medical insurance, after having read the later contract, and without any protest or reservation, was an unequivocal act referable only to his having accepted all of the terms of the later contract, including the restrictive covenants. Practitioners will note more generally the comments of Mr Justice Hildyard at paragraphs 55- 57 and 77-80 of the judgment, expressing misgivings at the directions given for the determination of the issue by way of a separate mini-trial where the issue was not properly a preliminary issue and not determinative of the proceedings.
CIPP Policy News Journal
12/04/2013, Page 63 of 362
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker