Time off work
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 Forster v Cartwright Black, the EAT holds that the statutory right to time off for dependants contained in s.57A(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 does not include sickness absence caused by a bereavement.
In Qua v John Ford Morrison Solicitors, the EAT holds that the statutory right to take a "reasonable amount of time off" to care for dependants is a right that applies during working hours to enable employees to deal with the variety of specified unexpected or sudden events affecting their dependants, and in order to make any "necessary" longer-term arrangements for their care.
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.
In Rama v South West Trains, the High Court confirms that the test to determine safety representatives' entitlement to paid leave to attend health and safety training is not limited to training that is necessary to enable representatives to fulfil their functions.
An employee cannot complain that he or she has been refused time off for trade union duties unless it is established that a request for time off was made which came to the notice of the employer's appropriate representative, and that they either refused it, ignored it or failed to respond to it, holds the EAT in Ryford Ltd v Drinkwater.
In Hairsine v Kingston-upon-Hull City Council, the EAT holds that a trade union official's right to paid time off work for training is limited to those hours when the employee would normally be at work. If the training course falls outside those hours, the employee is not entitled to paid time off "in lieu" during his or her contractual working hours.
An industrial tribunal was entitled to find that, in the circumstances of this case, lobbying of Parliament was not a trade union activity entitling union members to time off.
In assessing the reasonableness of the amount of paid time off for trade union duties under s.27(2) of the EP(C)A, the terms of a collectively agreed time off scheme ought to be taken into account, suggests the EAT in Ashley v Ministry of Defence.
S.61 of the Employment Protection Act provides a right for employees who have been given notice of dismissal by reason of redundancy to be allowed reasonable time off during working hours to look for new employment or make training arrangements. In Dutton v Hawker Siddeley Aviation Ltd, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has its first opportunity to consider this section. Several principles emerge from the EAT's decision.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to time off work.