Managing employees/workers
In MacCulloch & Wallis Ltd v Moore EAT/51/02, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the right to time off for dependants is a right to be permitted a reasonable amount of time off to provide assistance or arrange for the provision of care if a dependant is taken ill or injured. The employee cannot extend that period unless there is clear evidence that further assistance or arrangements are required. Although what constitutes a reasonable amount of time off will vary depending on the circumstances, in most cases only one or two days will be needed to deal with the immediate issue and make any necessary longer-term arrangements.
The EAT holds in Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v (1) Jarvis and others (2) Brentvine Ltd that an employment tribunal which expressly found that there was no contract, either written or oral, between a client company and a worker supplied to it by an employment agency, erred in law in going on to rule that the existence of factors consistent with a contract of employment subsisting, and the fact that the worker had worked continuously for the client company for nine years, made her an employee of the client company.
In MITIE Managed Services Ltd v French and others, the EAT holds that a contractual right to participate in an employer's profit-sharing scheme may, following a TUPE transfer, become a right to participate in a scheme of "substantial equivalence" only, if the right to continue participating in the original scheme is absurd, impossible or unjust.
In RCO Support Services and another v Unison and others, the Court of Appeal upholds a decision of an employment tribunal that there were relevant transfers of undertakings within the meaning of the TUPE Regulations in the form of labour-intensive cleaning and catering support activities, respectively, despite the fact that almost none of the workforce was taken on by the transferee.
In Curr v Marks & Spencer plc, the EAT holds that an employee who took a four-year break from work under her employer's "child-break scheme", after which she was re-engaged, was to be regarded as continuing in employment "by arrangement" during that period when no contract of employment subsisted.
Early retirement and enhanced benefits paid on dismissal for redundancy to employees who have reached a certain age are not "old-age, invalidity or survivors' benefits" within the meaning of article 3(4) of the EC Business Transfers Directive, even if those benefits were calculated by reference to the rules for calculating normal pension benefits, holds the European Court of Justice in Beckmann v Dynamco Whicheloe Macfarlane Ltd.
In Leisure Leagues UK Ltd v Maconnachie, the EAT holds that a payment in lieu of holiday made on termination of employment should be calculated by reference to a daily rate of pay based on the number of working days in a year (233 days), and not by the number of days in the calendar year (365 days).
In Parkins v Sodexho Ltd, the EAT holds that a protected disclosure for the purposes of s.43B Employment Rights Act 1996 can relate to a breach of the employee's own contract of employment.
In Hagen and others v ICI Chemicals and Polymers Ltd, the High Court holds that on the facts, an employer owed a duty to take reasonable care as to the truth of statements made to its employees in relation to a TUPE transfer.
In Hewlett Packard Ltd v O'Murphy, the EAT holds that a computer specialist was not an employee of the company to which he provided his services - Hewlett Packard - as there was no contractual relationship of any kind between them.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to managing employees/workers.