‘Carol Davis comments on the BIS plans to call for evidence on potentially stifling employment rules and considers a world without non-compete clauses.’
Littleton Chambers, 23rd March 2016
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling on childcare vouchers is at odds with the approach taken by most employers.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 9th May 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The new contract ministers plan to force on NHS junior doctors discriminates against female medics and is potentially illegal, Britain’s equality watchdog has told the government.’
The Guardian, 28th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A recent decision by the Court of Appeal provides a “helpful summary” of the circumstances in which employment terms set out in separate documents should be considered incorporated into employee’s contracts, according to an employment law expert.’
OUT-LAW.com, 26th Aoril 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
Sparks and others v Department for Transport [2016] EWCA Civ 360
‘A provision in the employer’s staff handbook stated that where in any 12 month period the employee had taken a number of short term absences which together exceeded 21 working days, the employee’s line manager would discuss his attendance record with him, and only if those “trigger points” had been exceeded and the line manager had consequently acknowledged that there was a problem with the employee’s attendance would the line manager take the matter forward in accordance with the relevant attendance procedures. The handbook provided that all it provisions which applied to the particular employee and were apt for incorporation should be incorporated into the employee’s contract of employment. The provision in question was in a part of the handbook on ill health, which contained the following introductory words: “This chapter sets out your terms and conditions of employment relating to sick leave … [and] the management of poor attendance….” Seven employees, all of whom were employed by different agencies within the same government department and were subject to somewhat different but materially similar provisions, brought claims contending that those provisions were terms of the contracts of employment between them and their employer. The employer maintained that the provisions were not legally enforceable contractual terms but mere notes of guidance or good practice of no legal force. The provision in respect of cumulative short-term absences in the first employee’s documents was taken to determine the question between the employer and all the employees. The judge held that the provisions were terms of the employees’ contracts of employment, and made declarations to that effect. As a result the judge declared that a new policy of attendance management introduced by the employer in July 2012 had not been effective to vary the contractual terms of the employment contracts and was not contractually binding on the employees.’
WLR Daily, 14th April 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Such issues were central in Vestergaard A/S v Bestnet Europe Limited [2013] UKSC 31 (V v B). Shortly afterwards the Patents County Court (two months before it became the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court) had to decide in Pintorex Limited v Parax Limited [2013] EWPCC 36 (P v P), theliability of a sole director and sole shareholder of a company, by the application of the guidelines in Vestergaard. The Judge in P v P was Mr Recorder Alastair Wilson QC, who represented the successful respondents in V v B.’
New Square Chambers, 30th September 2015
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
‘In certain occupations, it is common for the employment contract to require the employee to sleep overnight at the place of employment some or all nights of the week and to be “on call” should any incidents arise. Typically those occupations attract low wages and include care workers, supervisors at boarding schools and porters in residential blocks of flats. If the employee is entitled to be paid for all the hours whilst they are present at the workplace, even when they are asleep, and not just those hours when they are attending incidents, then their average wage may fall below the National Minimum Wage [“NMW”]. What, then, is the test to be applied to whether hours spent asleep are to be taken into account?’
No. 5 Chambers, 30th September 2015
Source: www.no5.com
‘FOCUS The EU’s highest court has ruled that the time those with no fixed place of work spend travelling between home and their first and last places of work each day counts as “woking time” – but this does not necessarily entitle them to extra pay.’
OUT-LAW.com, 11th September 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘In granting the anti-suit injunction against EMC Corporation in Petter v (1) EMC Europe Limited (2) EMC Corporation [2015] EWCA Civ 828, the CA considered that it was upholding the policy in section 5 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 for the protection of employees from being sued other than in the courts of their domicile. But was it exceeding the limits of its jurisdiction to regulate the lawful conduct of foreigners, and interfering in the process of justice in the court of a friendly foreign state?’
Employment Law Blog, 13th August 2015
Source: www.employment11kbw.com
‘Employers may be entitled to deduct a day’s pay for strike action at the rate of 1/260th of the striking worker’s salary depending on contractual terms, the Court of Appeal has confirmed.’
Out-Law.com, 28th May 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Legislation that the prime minister, David Cameron, boasted will protect workers on zero-hours contracts has been described as toothless by employment lawyers.’
The Guardian, 26th May 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Hartley and others v King Edward VI College [2015] EWCA Civ 455; [2015] WLR (D) 216
‘Section 2 of the Apportionment Act 1870 applied to teachers’ contracts of employment, requiring that apportionment of pay be considered as accruing from day to day; but it was an error to construe the provision as though it also contained a principle of equal daily accrual.’
WLR Daily, 14th May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Sharpe v Bishop of Worcester (in his corporate capacity) [2015] EWCA Civ 399; [2015] WLR (D) 196
‘In determining the question of whether a person was a “worker” within the meaning of section 43K(1)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the words “terms on which he is or was engaged to do the work” required the person to have a contract with the person of whom he was said to be a “worker”.’
WLR Daily, 30th April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Contracts often include terms that give discretion to one of the parties to make a decision affecting the other party. Does that mean that the party with the discretion can use it freely? Apparently not, according to a recent Supreme Court case.’
Technology Law Update, 25th March 2015
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
‘If employers want to vary a contract of employment they must first make sure that they have a very clear right to do so.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 18th February 2015
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Periodically the topic of gagging clauses resurfaces in the press. In 2013 the revelation of large numbers of NHS employees entering into such agreements produced a mass of publicity. Interest in the topic duly stimulated, it led to recommendations by the Public Accounts Committee in the House of Commons that revised guidance from the Cabinet Office should require public sector organisations to secure approval from the Cabinet Office for special severance payments and associated compromise agreements where they relate to cases of whistleblowing.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 8th January 2015
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Many large employers (particularly those who acquire other businesses over time) are faced with employees (often senior and important employees) on ‘old’ contracts with unenforceable, inappropriate or even no restrictive covenants. Quite aside from the potential difficulties posed by TUPE, remedying that problem often proves difficult in practice, and requires careful management.’
Littleton Chambers, 8th December 2014
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
Yapp v Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2014] EWCA Civ 1512; [2014] WLR (D) 501
‘The withdrawal, on operational grounds, of the claimant from his position in the diplomatic service as a British High Commissioner constituted a breach of his contract of employment by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but such a withdrawal was not a breach of the latter’s common law duty of care. The development of psychiatric illness suffered by the claimant in consequence of the withdrawal was too remote to foresee for a claim for compensation’
WLR Daily, 21st November 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A zero hours contract is not a term of legal art although a definition has been attempted in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill which proposes to insert as S.27A of the Employment Rights Act 1996:
(1) In this section “zero hours contract” means a contract of employment or other worker’s contact under which –
(a) The undertaking to do or perform work is an undertaking to do so conditionally on the employer making work or services available to the worker, and
(b) There is no certainty that any such work or services will be made available to the worker.
(2) For this purpose, an employer makes work or services available to a worker if the employer requests or requires the worker to do the work or perform the services.’
Full story (PDF)
No. 5 Chambers, 14th November 2014
Source: www.no5.com
Sunrise Brokers LLP v Rodgers [2014] EWCA Civ 1373; [2014] WLR (D) 442
‘In considering whether to grant injunctive relief preventing an employee from working for another employer it was critical whether the grant of such relief would be tantamount to compelling the employee to return to work; and the question whether an employee in such a case who refused to return to work was entitled to continuing emoluments was an issue that essentially turned on the facts of the case. There was no rule requiring the employer to give some form of undertaking as to remuneration which went beyond the employer’s obligations under the contract, in order that the employer should be entitled to obtain an injunction.’
WLR Daily, 23rd October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025