Archives

Archives / 2012 / October
  • Light shed on holiday rights of sick employees

    Tags: Employment Tribunals, Breach of Contract, Employment Law, Ill Health, Sick Leave and Holiday Pay

    This summer there has been some interesting case law on the question of employee rights to holiday or payment in lieu of holiday when on sick leave. The principle that the purpose of paid annual leave is to enable the worker to enjoy a period of rest and enjoy a period of relaxation and leisure is well established; as is the principle that entitlement to sick leave is to ensure that the worker can recover from an illness that has caused him to be unfit for work.

    Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución, a European case, confirms that where an employee falls ill during their annual holiday leave, they are entitled to take additional holiday at a later date, for a period equivalent to the sick leave taken during annual leave.

     

    Many employers already … more

  • Disciplinary action – is a second bite of the cherry permitted?

    Tags: Unfair Dismissal, Employment Tribunals, Disciplinary Procedure, Employment Law

    Where an employee has been disciplined once for failing to deliver a project to a long standing client, can an employer discipline them again for the same offence, if a year later the same client later decides to terminate their business contract with the company citing the earlier offence as the reason?

    The EAT examined whether an employee could be disciplined twice for matters arising out of the same facts, particularly if the second proceedings resulted in a dismissal, in the recent decision of Christou & anor v London Borough of Haringey. They held that the question of fairness of the dismissal falls to be determined under the test set out in section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA), that is ‘whether in the circumstances (including the size and administrative … more

  • When is a dismissal within the range of reasonable responses?

    Tags: Unfair Dismissal, Employment Tribunals, Employment Law, Reasonable Responses for Dismissal

    When deciding whether a dismissal is within the range of reasonable responses, a pertinent question is whether an employment tribunal can consider matters which the employer did not take into account?

    This was considered by the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) in the case of Neijjary -v- Aramark Ltd. The Claimant in this case was a hospitality manager, who was working for the Respondents contract with Goldman Sach's. He was dismissed in 2009 for a single incident of failure to check a booking sheet which lead to a complaint being made by the customer.

    Both the dismissing manager and appeals officer relied on this one incident as justification for the dismissal on the grounds of gross misconduct.

    The original allegations

    The initial allegations against the Claimant were:

    1. & … more

  • New National Minimum Wage (NMW) rates

    Tags: Minimum Wages

    Current Rate

    New Rate

    Effective From

    National Minimum Wage (NMW) - Standard (adult) rate (workers ages 21 years and over)

    £6.09

    £6.19

    01/10/12

    NMW - Development rate (workers aged between 18-20)

    £4.98

    £4.98

    01/10/12

    NMW - Young workers right (workers aged under 18 but above the compulsory school age who are not apprentices)

    £3.68

    £3.68

    01/10/12

    NMW - Apprentices (under 19 years old or those aged 19 and over but in the first year of their apprenticeship)

    £2.60

    £2.65

    01/10/12

    Guarantee Pay

    £22.20

    £23.50

    01/02/12

    The limit on the amount of a week’s pay for the purposes of … more

LATEST LEGAL UPDATES:

  • 3 Things We Learnt In Law This Week (18 April 2019)

    Tags: Employment Law, Employment Tribunal, Unlawful Deductions, Overtime

    Holland & Barrett Employee Wins Overtime Case

    A tribunal has ruled that Holland & Barrett made unlawful deductions from the pay of an employee who was required to carry out tasks beyond his contracted hours.

    Mr Fitz was employed as a supervisor and was required to cover for the store manager if they were absent. This required opening the store in the morning and closing the store in the evening, among other tasks that needed to be completed during opening hours.

    Closing the store involved four stages: closing the tills on the shop floor; reconciling the tills in the back office; closing the register and locking up the store, all of which Holland & Barrett told the tribunal took a few minutes. However, Fitz claimed that he also had to undertake other additional tasks at the … more

    

Reviews and Ratings for solicitor Samira Cakali, Leeds