Hyde Housing Association Ltd and others v Layton [2016] IRLR 107 EAT, the EAT held that there was no TUPE transfer when an employee became employed by a group of entities that included his original employer, because the legal relationship between the employee and the original employer had not changed.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that it is not discriminatory for an employer that offers childcare vouchers in return for a deduction from pay to cease to offer the vouchers during maternity leave.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has refused to interfere with the tribunal decision that the Working Time Regulations 1998 can be interpreted to require employers to include a worker's commission in the calculation of his or her holiday pay.
In Federación de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones Obreras v Tyco Integrated Security SL and another [2015] IRLR 935 ECJ, the ECJ held that, for peripatetic workers who travel directly to customer addresses from home and who travel home directly from customer addresses at the end of the working day, the time spent travelling on those first and last journeys of the day is working time within the meaning of art.2 of the Working Time Directive.
This first-instance tribunal decision shows that a series of incidents in which an employee is warned for verbally abusing colleagues can combine to lead to a fair dismissal, even if taken individually the incidents do not justify dismissal.
Laying off employees before a service provision change does not necessarily prevent them from transferring to the new employer under TUPE. Lindsay Macdonald reports on a recent case at the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
Amanda Steadman is a professional support lawyer, Iain Naylor, Lucy Sorell and Rachael Wake are associates, and Jessica-Alice Curtis is a trainee solicitor at Addleshaw Goddard LLP. They round up the latest rulings.
In this Romanian case, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) accepted that the employee's right to a private life had been affected when his employer accessed his Yahoo messages. However, the ECHR went on to hold that the employer's actions were justified in the circumstances and not in breach of art. 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.