Karen Smith and Sophy Robinson of Addleshaw Goddard bring you a comprehensive update on the latest decisions that could affect your organisation, and provide advice on what to do about them.
In Truelove v Safeway Stores plc, the EAT holds that it is not necessary for a parent or carer faced with an unexpected disruption in arrangements for the care of a dependant, and seeking time off to deal with the emergency, to give reasons to his or her employer with any formality.
In Smith v AJ Morrisroes & Sons Ltd and other appeals, the EAT holds that the guidelines set out by the EAT in Marshalls Clay require that "there must be mutual agreement for genuine payment for holidays, representing a true addition to the contractual rate of pay for time worked."
In Pfeiffer and others v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV, the European Court of Justice held that the exclusion of 'road transport' from the provisions of the Working Time Directive did not cover emergency workers, even when they used a road vehicle and accompanied patients on their journeys to hospital.
In Gallagher and others v Alpha Catering Services Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that, for the purposes of reg. 21(c) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, it is the worker's activities, not the activities of the employer's business, that are relevant when considering the need for continuity of service or production.
In Clamp v Aerial Systems, the EAT holds that, in a case where the applicant withdrew his consent to opt out of the maximum 48-hour week set by the Working Time Regulations 1998, the applicant had not suffered a detriment within the meaning of s.45A of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
In Howard v (1) Millrise Ltd and another, the EAT holds that the correct interpretation of reg.10 (8A) of TUPE is that, if there is no trade union and no elected employee representatives, the employer is under a duty to inform and consult employees affected by the transfer of the undertaking.
In Usetech Ltd v Young (Inspector of Taxes) [2004] EWHC 2248 HC, the High Court found that where an individual provided his services through his own service company and an agency all the contracts were subsumed into one. The relevant terms identified and transferred to the notional contract between the individual and the hirer were consistent with those of an employment contract.