The EAT held that there should be some interpretation of TULRCA to yield the outcome that the obligation to collectively consult arises when 20 or more employees are to be dismissed—irrespective of their location. Subject to any appeal or new legislation, the requirement for collective redundancy consultation will be triggered in the future when an employer proposes to make redundant 20 or more employees within a 90-day period, even if they are employed across multiple establishments. It will not be open to the employer to avoid collective consultation by ensuring that fewer than 20 employees are made redundant at a number of different locations.
View the decision here .
CARRYING OVER OF ADDITIONAL HOLIDAY LEAVE WHILST ON SICK LEAVE
24 July 2013
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) have recently considered the question, can additional annual leave be carried forward in the absence of an agreement between the parties? Thank you to Daniel Barnett’s Employment Law Bulletin for the following summary of the EAT ruling on Sood Enterprises v Healy where it has been confirmed that additional holiday leave cannot be automatically carried forward. Mr Healy was off work sick for a year and a half when he resigned. The EAT held that unlike 'ordinary'• annual leave, provided for by Regulation 13 Working Time Regulations 1998, additional annual leave, provided for by Regulations 13A Working Time Regulations, cannot be carried over unless there is an agreement in place between the parties, which there was not. In other words, when an individual is on long-term sick leave, only four weeks' annual leave carries over automatically - and not the additional 1.6 weeks granted by UK law which exceeds the European minimum of four weeks' annual leave.
ALEMO-HERRON V PARKWOOD LEISURE LTD
25 July 2013
The European Court has delivered its judgement concerning the binding nature, to a transferee employer, of clauses within contracts that require an employer to follow determinations of a third party.
Thank you to Daniel Barnett’s Employment Law Mailing for providing the following summary.
In Alemo-Herron v Parkwood Leisure Ltd the European Court has delivered its long awaited judgment in the litigation concerning whether clauses in employment contracts which oblige an employer to follow determinations of a third party (such as a national negotiating body) in setting pay are binding on a transferee employer. In British law, the answer was originally that such clauses are dynamic in nature, thus transferring to the new employer under TUPE even if the new employer has no say in the national bargaining arrangements. In the case of Werhof [2006] ECR 1-2397 the European Court held, however, that such clauses are static in nature, thus obliging the new employer to follow only the current collective agreement affecting pay and conditions and not future determinations by a third party when the employer is not a party to the negotiations.
CIPP Policy News Journal
16/04/2014, Page 107 of 519
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker