Contact: Nick Huffer; Contact: Clarkslegal LLP (Reading, England)
Holiday pay
- Neal v Freightliner Ltd (EAT) An employment tribunal has held that a worker’s overtime should be included in the calculation of holiday pay. This decision has been appealed to the EAT but at present the case at the sift stage, awaiting to hear if the judge will allow the appeal to proceed to a full hearing.
- Lock v British Gas Trading Ltd (ECJ) Closely related to the Neal case, an employment tribunal referred to the ECJ a number of questions on the relationship between holiday pay and commission, including whether or not “normal pay” when calculating pay for annual leave should include contractual payments received through commission. The Advocate General gave his opinion on 5 December 2013, saying that commission should be included in holiday pay. The decision of the full ECJ is awaited.
Collective redundancy consultation
- Usdaw v Ethel Austin Ltd (in administration); Usdaw and another v WW Realisation 1 Ltd and others (Court of Appeal)The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the words “at one establishment” are to be disregarded in relation to section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Hence, an employer that is proposing 20 or more redundancies across the whole organisation within a period of 90 days or less will have collective consultation obligations. The case is floating for hearing on 21 or 22 January 2014 in the Court of Appeal.
- Lyttle and others v Bluebird UK Bidco 2 Ltd (ECJ) Very closely related to the USDAW case above, a Northern Ireland tribunal has asked the European Court of Justice (ECJ) clarification of what is meant by “establishment” for the purposes of European law. The application was lodged on 12 April 2013.
- United States of America v Nolan (Court of Appeal) The ECJ held that it has no jurisdiction in the matter and hence the case returns to the Court of Appeal. Guidance is awaited as to when the obligation to consult collectively on redundancies is triggered. Judgment was reserved on 18 November 2013 and the outcome is awaited.
Victimisation
- Taiwo v Olaigbe and another; Rowstock Ltd and another v Jessemey and another; Akwiwu and another v Onu; Onu v Akwiwu and another (Court of Appeal)Two separate EAT cases have come to contradictory conclusions on whether or not the wording of the Equality Act 2010 covers victimisation that occurs after the end of employment. The Court of Appeal will hopefully decide which one is right. Judgment was reserved on 7 November 2013.
Trade unions
- Pharmacists’ Defence Association Union v Boots Management Services Ltd (High Court) The Central Arbitration Committee has ruled that a trade union could proceed with its application for statutory recognition even though Boots had already entered into an agreement with a different union covering the same employees. It was considered that the relevant legislation which deals with the admissibility of applications for union recognition, is not compliant with art.11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which covers the right to freedom of assembly and association. Judgment was reserved in the High Court on 30 October 2013.
Pensions
- Walker v Innospec Ltd and others (EAT) The employment tribunal held that the Equality Act 2010 fails to provide the required protection under EU law for a couple in a civil partnership who were denied accrual of benefits to which married couples were entitled under a pension scheme. The EAT is to consider the appeal on 22 to 24 January 2014 .
