Commentary

(c) Agreements to work fewer days

Division BI Pay
| Commentary

(c) Agreements to work fewer days

| Commentary

(c)     Agreements to work fewer days

So much for the position of casual workers, but there has always been a further and arguably more serious threat to the protection intended to be given to the employee where there has been a reduction in working hours prior to the claim. The argument goes as follows. The entitlement under s 28 is conditional on there being a workless day, which means not just a day without work, but such a day 'during any part of which an employee would normally be required to work in accordance with his contract of employment'. If the employer acts unilaterally and simply imposes short-time working there is usually no problem with this, but what if (in line with better employment relations) the employer and staff enter into an agreement to work fewer days – as may well have happened in a number of workplaces as a first response to the coronavirus pandemic? Does that become the new situation of 'normality' under the contract of employment, disentitling the employee to a guarantee payment for the days no longer worked? Should this employment right be so easily negated? Yes,

To continue reading
Analyse the law and clarify obscure passages all within a practical context.