Thursday, 30 July 2009

Is a Claimant Laid off or Redundant?

For the first time ever this week I had a case involving Lay off law, which rarely raises its ugly head in a tribunal.

A lay off is a type of suspension with pay usually adopted by the employer in quiet times.

The law is clear on whether an employer has the right to lay a worker off. It depends on the employee's contract (inc. a collective agreement).


If an employee has finished 2 years continuous employment and is laid off for at least 4 consecutive weeks (or six non consecutive weeks in a 13 week period) he will be entitled to claim redundancy pay. Remember a week's notice is required.

Monday, 20 July 2009

England's cricket league plan falls foul of employment law.

The UK's version of the IPL cricket league has run into employment problems due to the requirement that each team is to have only one Indian player. This type of problem has raised its head before to some extent with the Bosman ruling.

The Times reported today that:

A document circulated for discussion at Wednesday’s meeting states: “The premise that Indian players could be centrally contracted with a requirement for one Indian player in each Division 1 team and assigned in a form of draft pick structure could be challengeable under the Race Discrimination Act/Restraint of Trade.

Thursday, 16 July 2009

When do the old grievance procedures apply?

Either the standard grievance procedure or the modified grievance procedure would apply and the action on which the grievance is based:

occurs entirely before 6 April 2009; or

begins on or before 5 April 2009 and continues beyond that date and the employee presents a complaint to an employment tribunal or submits a valid written grievance:

on or before 4 July 2009 for claims with a three-month time limit;

on or before 4 October 2009 for claims with a six-month time limit (claims for equal pay, statutory redundancy pay, and anything to which section 238 of TULRCA applies).

(Schedule to the Employment Act 2008 (Commencement No. 1, Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2008 (SI 2008/3232).)

Wednesday, 15 July 2009

More Time Limit Law - This Time Equal Pay and Tupe

Equal Pay fused with TUPE any lawyer's nightmare!

Thanks to Daniel Barnett's bulletin we see the news that:

The Court of Appeal has today handed down its decision in Gutridge v Sodexo , a case involving equal pay rights in the event of women being subject to a TUPE transfer .

By a majority, the Court of Appeal upholds Elias P.'s decision in the EAT, namely that:-

claims for equal pay losses, which have accumulated during employment up to the date of transfer of the undertaking to the transferee, must be brought against the transferee within 6 months of the date of the transfer (and will otherwise be barred by limitation rules); but,

claims for losses after the date of the transfer are able to proceed against the new (transferee) employer for up to 6 years' losses from the date of the claim. Claims must be pursued within 6 months of the termination of that employment.

Barnett states:
'Employers taking over public sector service contracts will therefore continue to be liable for equal pay claims long after the transfer has taken place for so long as those transferred remain employed, based on the earnings of comparators employed by the public authority before the transfer occurred'.

Of course there was law relating to deduction of wages and time limits earlier this month.

'Geek Lawyer' Blog Hits the Mark

Geek Lawyer Blog is an eye arresting, random law story generator

Leaked report suggests gangmaster laws to be extended to cut deaths in construction industry

It is likely that the net result of a Governmant inquiry into deaths in the construction industry means that Directors will be legally forced to ensure good health and safety management and gangmaster licensing will be extended to the construction industry.

'The Guardian' reports: 'The long-awaited 96-page report from Rita Donaghy, former head of the conciliation service Acas, also calls for the appointment of a full-time minister of construction and measures to make it easier to prosecute directors'.

Full article:

Thursday, 9 July 2009

Free Redundancy Calculator

Tuesday, 7 July 2009

Gov May Clamp Down on No Win No Fee in Employment Cases

Have a look at this paper!

Thursday, 2 July 2009

Proud to Feature in Onrec's Mag!

Harassment Article

SCA Packaging - New Case on Definition of 'Likely' in DDA

Judgments - SCA Packaging Limited (Appellants) v Boyle (Respondent) (Northern Ireland) [2009] UKHL 37

In order to decide whether an illness hoarseness caused by nodes on the vocal chords qualified as a disability for the purposes of the DDA 1995, the Court had to consider meaning of the word 'likely'! Under the DDA the word, likely appears 4 times but this case was concerned with 2 applications:

"Where an impairment ceases to have a substantial adverse effect on a person's ability to carry out day-to-day activities, it is to be treated as having that effect if that effect is likely to recur."
(Paragraph 2(2), Schedule 1, DDA.)

Paragraph 6(1) – "an impairment which would be likely to have a substantial adverse effect on the ability of the person concerned to carry out normal day-to-day activities, but for the fact that measures are being taken to treat or correct it, is to be treated as having that effect"

the House of Lords rejected a previous authority that 'likely' in the context of the DDA 1995 was taken to mean a 51% chance. The courts should apply the possibly lower standard of, 'could well happen'.

NB The other mention of 'likely' appears;

Paragraph 8(1) – where a person has a progressive condition "he shall be taken to have an impairment which has a substantial adverse effect if the condition is likely to result in his having such an impairment"

Paragraph 2(1) – "the effect of an impairment is a long-term effect where… the period for which it lasts is likely to be at least 12 months; or it is likely to last for the rest of the life of the person affected"