Managing employees/workers

New and updated

• Date:

  4 April 2003

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Working time: I5-year-old "paper boy" was not entitled to paid holiday under WTR

  In Addison & Addison (t/a Brayton News) v Ashby, the EAT holds that a 15-year-old "paper boy" is not a "worker" for the purposes of the Working Time Regulations 1998, and so is not entitled to four weeks' paid annual leave under the Regulations.

• Type:

  FAQs

  When is an employee entitled to receive statutory adoption pay?

• Type:

  FAQs

  Which areas should be covered in a company's disciplinary rules?

• Type:

  FAQs

  Will invoking the company disciplinary procedure be the best means of dealing with all instances of absence and poor performance?

• Type:

  FAQs

  Is an employee who has exhausted their sick pay entitled to notice pay if dismissed on grounds of ill health?

• Date:

  7 March 2003

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Continuity of employment: Continuity not preserved during "child-break" absence

  In Curr v Marks & Spencer plc the Court of Appeal 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, had not been absent from work in circumstances such that "by arrangement she was regarded as continuing in the employment" during that break when no contract of employment subsisted.

• Type:

  FAQs

  Which earnings period is taken into account when calculating entitlement to statutory adoption pay?

• Type:

  FAQs

  Can an employer refuse to let a member of the reserve forces who has been called out go?

• Type:

  FAQs

  In what circumstances can an employer reject a request for flexible working?

• Date:

  10 January 2003

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Equal pay: Transferred workers cannot compare their pay with retained workers

  Article 141 of the EC Treaty of Rome is not limited to situations where men and women work for the same employer, but it does not cover the situation where pay differences between equal pay claimants and their comparators cannot be attributed to a single source, so that there is no single body responsible for the inequality and which can restore equal treatment, the European Court of Justice holds in Lawrence and others v Regent Office Care Ltd and others.