approach.
The effect of the 12-week average approach is that holiday pay as a percentage of annual earnings for a part-timer on a 32-week 'year' would be 46.4/32 x 12.07% = 17.5%, giving proportionately more holiday pay than a worker working throughout the year getting 5.6 weeks paid leave. The EAT noted that part-timers are entitled to be treated no less favourably than full-time workers, there is no scope for calculating holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations so as to avoid a 'windfall' for part-timers, or to avoid full- timers not being treated less favourably. The EAT noted that this judgment would be of importance for some schools and teachers.
With thanks to Daniel Barnett’s employment law bulletin for providing this update.
CIPP comment The CIPP run a practical half day course which includes an overview of the legal framework that governs holiday pay and entitlement, as well as worked exercises to explore the calculations thoroughly. This course will always include the most up to date information to account for ongoing case law. Visit the training area of our website for full details.
Back to Contents
Pregnant workers may be dismissed on grounds of a collective redundancy 13 March 2018
In such cases, the employer must provide the dismissed pregnant worker with the reasons justifying the redundancy as well as the objective criteria chosen to identify the workers to be dismissed.
In a recent employment law case - Guisado v Bankia and Others - the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that the Pregnant Workers Directive 92/85 does not prevent national legislation which allows an employer to dismiss a pregnant worker in the context of a collective redundancy. Effectively, Directive 92/85 prohibits the dismissal of workers during the period from the beginning of their pregnancy to the end of their maternity leave, save in exceptional cases not connected with their condition which are permitted under national legislation and/or practice. On 9 January 2013, the Spanish company Bankia opened a period of consultation with its workers’ representatives with a view to carrying out a collective redundancy. On 8 February 2013, the special negotiating body reached an agreement establishing the criteria to be applied in selecting the workers to be made redundant as well as the criteria for establishing priority status for retention in the company. On 13 November 2013, Bankia notified a worker, who was pregnant at the time, of her dismissal by letter, in accordance with the agreement drawn up by the special negotiating body. That letter stated, among other things, in the specific case of the province where she worked it was necessary to significantly reduce the number of staff and that, as a result of the assessment process carried out in the undertaking during the consultation period, she had obtained a score that was among the lowest in the province. The worker in question challenged her dismissal but the court ruled in favour of Bankia. She then appealed against that judgment but the CJEU said that a dismissal decision taken during the period from the beginning of pregnancy to the end of the maternity leave for reasons unconnected with the worker’s pregnancy is not contrary to Directive 92/85, if the employer gives substantiated grounds for the dismissal in writing and the dismissal of the person concerned is permitted under the relevant national legislation and/or practice.
Back to Contents
Age Discrimination 14 March 2018
The Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals
Policy News Journal
cipp.org.uk
Page 104 of 516
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker