Monday 30 July 2012

Sick worker who could not take 4 weeks holiday was not required to ask


In NHS Leeds v Larner the Court of Appeal has held that a worker who was unable to take four weeks’ annual leave due to sickness did not have to make a request to carry the untaken leave over into the next leave year in order to receive a payment in lieu of it on termination of employment. 
In recent cases it has been suggested that a Cliamnat was not entitled to payment in lieu if they had not requested the leave before the end of the leave year. This too was the argument submitted by NHS Leeds but rejected by the courts.
The European Court of Justice’s decision in Pereda v Madrid Movilidad SAestablished that a worker who is on sick leave during a period of previously scheduled annual leave has the right to take that leave at another time. 'Pereda' was applied to the instant case, L had not had the opportunity during the leave year 2009/10 to take her annual leave. L was thus entitled to carry over her leave entitlement under Reg 13 WTR to the following year without having to make a formal request. The right to be paid for that annual leave crystallised on the termination of her employment. She was therefore entitled to be paid for the annual leave which she had not been able to take in the leave year 2009/10. NHS Leeds appealed again.

Sunday 22 July 2012

ACAS issues Olympics guidance for employers


ACAS issues Olympics guidance for employers
ACAS issues Olympics guidance for employers
The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) has issued guidance for employers on some of the issues that might arise in connection with the London 2012 Olympic Games, which commence on 27 July. Questiions such as how do you avoid disruption? are broached.
They say on a very useful website:
Everyone is working together to make the Olympic and Paralympic Games a great success. Employers should now be considering more flexible working arrangements, how they might minimise potential disruption and manage staff expectations to ensure business runs smoothly .
Employees are split into volunteers, spectators and those watching TV from home - more.


Wednesday 11 July 2012

Part-time judges should receive pensions, Supreme Court rules


UK regulations on the rights of part-time workers, which implement the EU’s part-time workers directive, currently exclude part-time judges because they are ‘office holders’. The Supreme Court has followed the invitation from Luxembourg to consider part-time judges as 'workers'.

UK regulations on the rights of part-time workers, which implement the EU’s part-time workers directive, currently exclude part-time judges because they are ‘office holders’. In March, the European Court of Justice said in Case C-393/10 O’Brien v Ministry of Justice that such exclusion would only be lawful if the relationship between judges and the Ministry of Justice was “by its nature substantially different from that between employers and their employees falling under the category of workers”.
Holding judicial office was “insufficient in itself” to exclude judges from the protection in the directive, the court went on, as it proceeded to list the factors the Supreme Court should consider when assessing whether the exclusion could be justified. Just because part-time judges and recorders retained the opportunity to practise as barristers didn’t mean they weren’t “in a comparable situation” to full-time judges, the court found, as they performed “essentially the same activity”.
The case was brought by Dermod O’Brien QC, who sat as a recorder for 27 years and was refused a pension when he retired in 2005.

The Supreme Court has decided not to remit the case to the employment tribunal and consider remaining points of fact at a further hearing on the appeal on 21 November. The Justices agreed that this was because there are no “significant disputed issues of fact to be determined” .