Managing employees/workers
In Delabole Slate Ltd v Berriman the Court of Appeal upholds the EAT's decision that a dismissal which occurs as a consequence of a change in terms of employment following the transfer of an undertaking is not a dismissal for "an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce", and so is automatically unfair under reg.8(1) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.
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.
An Industrial Tribunal's decision as to whether a contract is a contract of employment can only be overturned on appeal if the Tribunal misdirected itself in law or reached a perverse decision on the facts, the majority of the Court of Appeal concludes in the widely publicised case of O'Kelly and others v Trusthouse Forte Plc.
Where a contract of employment does not specify a limit to the duration of sick pay, it does not continue indefinitely but only for a reasonable period, holds the EAT, in Howman & Son v Blyth. However in deciding what is a reasonable period, Tribunals should consider the limit specified in a national agreement in the relevant industry.
One of the grounds on which an interval between two contracts of employment does not break continuity is that the employee is absent from work due to a temporary cessation of work. In a decision that will benefit many teachers and temporary workers, the House of Lords holds in Ford v Warwickshire County Council that it is not relevant that the interval was anticipated and lies between two fixed term contracts. The test in all cases is whether the gap is short In relation to the duration of the two contracts.
In Ross v Delrosa Caterers Ltd [1981] ICR 393 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that, although continuity of employment is broken where a redundancy payment has been paid to an employee and the contract of employment is renewed or the employee re-engaged under a new contract, this is the case only if the redundancy payment is a statutory redundancy payment.
In Rowan v Machinery Installations (South Wales) Ltd [1981] IRLR 122 EAT, the EAT held that the Industrial Tribunal had erred in finding that the appellant's period of continuous employment had been broken when his contract of employment had been terminated by the respondents and he was paid an amount calculated in accordance with the statutory redundancy payment provisions, in circumstances in which there was no liability on the respondents to make a redundancy payment.
In Savage v J Sainsbury Ltd [1980] IRLR 109 CA, the Court of Appeal held that where a disciplinary procedure provides a right of appeal against dismissal and treats the employee as suspended without pay until the appeal is heard, the effective date of termination if the appeal is rejected is when the dismissal initially took effect and not when the appeal was rejected.
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.
In Corner v Buckinghamshire County Council, a time off for public duties case, the EAT holds the Industrial Tribunal can do no more than declare that the employer had failed to allow the employee to take reasonable time off and, if appropriate, make an award of compensation.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to managing employees/workers.