In CLECE SA v Valor [C-463/09], the ECJ decided that a TUPE transfer had not taken place - where a municipal authority had “contracted in” a cleaning contract and hired new workers to clean its premises. The economic entity had not retained its identity after the transfer.
Comment
Please note that reg. 3(1)(b)(iii) [service provision change] of the TUPE regulations did not affect the ECJ's decision in the CLECE case.
Prudent HR decisions are based on up-to-date information. Trotman's Employment Law Alerts (TELA) was an email news service that quickly informed HR professionals about the latest employment law developments. This is proven by the publication dates of the news items shown below. TELA provided accurate; concise; in-depth; and practical coverage of topical employment law developments. See @tonytrotman on X (formerly known as Twitter) for the latest employment law developments.
20 January 2011
19 January 2011
Statutory maternity pay
In Wade and North Yorkshire Police v HMRC [2011] UKUT B1 (TCC), Mrs Wade took police maternity leave earlier than the 11th week before the expected week of childbirth (EWC). She notified her employer that she wanted to receive her statutory maternity pay (SMP) from the 4th week before the EWC.
The employer argued that Mrs Wade should receive her SMP from the 11th week before the EWC.
The Upper Tribunal disagreed. Mrs Wade could claim her SMP from the 4th week before the EWC. The Statutory Maternity Pay (General) Regulations 1986 allowed Mrs Wade to select the start date of the SMP period.
The employer argued that Mrs Wade should receive her SMP from the 11th week before the EWC.
The Upper Tribunal disagreed. Mrs Wade could claim her SMP from the 4th week before the EWC. The Statutory Maternity Pay (General) Regulations 1986 allowed Mrs Wade to select the start date of the SMP period.
18 January 2011
Government publishes NMW consultation paper
The Government has published a consultation paper about the national minimum wage - in relation to living accommodation that is provided by a higher education institution (HEI) - for a student who works part-time for the HEI.
The consultation period will end on 12 April 2011.
The consultation paper is available on the BIS website.
The consultation period will end on 12 April 2011.
The consultation paper is available on the BIS website.
Disciplinary penalties for a group of employees
In University of Warwick v Gray [EAT/0508/09], the EAT held that Mr Gray’s dismissal was fair. The employer was entitled to take into account Mr Gray’s disciplinary record when it dismissed him - even though it had issued final written warnings to the other employees - who had committed the same disciplinary offence.
Comment
The Gray case provides further confirmation that an employer does not have to issue the same disciplinary penalty – to each member of a group of employees who have committed the same disciplinary offence – if they have different disciplinary records.
Also see London Borough of Harrow v Cunningham [EAT/1098/94].
Comment
The Gray case provides further confirmation that an employer does not have to issue the same disciplinary penalty – to each member of a group of employees who have committed the same disciplinary offence – if they have different disciplinary records.
Also see London Borough of Harrow v Cunningham [EAT/1098/94].
30 December 2010
TUPE: information and consultation
The cap on “a week’s pay” (currently £380) does not apply to compensatory awards for a breaching TUPE information and consultation obligations: Zaman v Kozee Sleep Products Ltd (t/a Dorlux Beds UK) [EAT/0312/10].
Opt-out Agreements
In Arriva South London Ltd v Nicolau [EAT/0280/10], the EAT remitted the following question to the employment tribunal.
Where a worker did not sign an opt-out agreement – did their employer take reasonable steps to ensure that they did not work more than 48 hours per week – if it did not allow them to work for any amount of overtime?
Opt-out Agreements
In Arriva South London Ltd v Nicolau [EAT/0280/10], the EAT remitted the following question to the employment tribunal.
Where a worker did not sign an opt-out agreement – did their employer take reasonable steps to ensure that they did not work more than 48 hours per week – if it did not allow them to work for any amount of overtime?
2 December 2010
Positive action law will come into force in April 2011
From 6 April 2011 - an employer can appoint or promote a person from an under-represented group if the job applicants are equally qualified: Equality Act 2010 (Commencement No. 5) Order 2011 [SI 2011/96].
On 12 January 2011, the Government Equalities Office published a guide for employers about postive action.
Gender pay reports
The Government will adopt a voluntary approach towards the publication of gender pay reports (GPR) by employers in the private and voluntary sectors. Each year, the Government will review the number of employers that are publishing GPR and the quality of those reports - to assess whether an alternative approach is required – e.g. a mandatory approach via s. 78 of the Equality Act 2010.
Source: Government Equalities Office
On 12 January 2011, the Government Equalities Office published a guide for employers about postive action.
Gender pay reports
The Government will adopt a voluntary approach towards the publication of gender pay reports (GPR) by employers in the private and voluntary sectors. Each year, the Government will review the number of employers that are publishing GPR and the quality of those reports - to assess whether an alternative approach is required – e.g. a mandatory approach via s. 78 of the Equality Act 2010.
Source: Government Equalities Office
1 December 2010
National Minimum Wage
Where a worker is provided with sleeping accommodation at the workplace – while they are on-call - the worker is entitled to be paid the national minimum wage (NMW) for the hours they are awake for the purpose of working: South Manchester Abbeyfield Society Ltd v Hopkins [EAT/0079/10].
However, a worker (e.g. a night-watchman) who is working by being present at the workplace - is entitled to be paid the NMW for the total hours of the nightshift - regardless of whether or not they are provided with sleeping accommodation.
Comment: The Hopkins case is good NMW news for employers in sectors where on-call arrangements are common, e.g. the residential care sector.
However, a worker (e.g. a night-watchman) who is working by being present at the workplace - is entitled to be paid the NMW for the total hours of the nightshift - regardless of whether or not they are provided with sleeping accommodation.
Comment: The Hopkins case is good NMW news for employers in sectors where on-call arrangements are common, e.g. the residential care sector.