Refine By
Clear all filter
About 90812 results for "*"
An employee who is redundant is offered a suitable alternative role on a trial period, but the trial fails. If they had less than two years’ service at the date the trial period began, but more than two years at the date of termination, are they entitled to a statutory redundancy payment?
Q&As
Where an employee is dismissed by reason of redundancy, the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) provides a mechanism for the employer to offer the employee, and for the employee to accept, new or renewed employment as an alternative to a redundancy payment. In certain circumstances, if this happens and the employee is re-engaged within four weeks, the original dismissal is deemed a ‘fiction’; the employee is considered not to be dismissed and is not entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. For more information, see Practice Notes: Renewal of contract, re-engagement and trial periods, Suitable alternative employment and Unreasonable refusal of alternative employment. Effect of renewal or re-engagement A distinction is made between the situation where: • the original contract is renewed • the employee is re-engaged under a new contract
An employee with over two years’ service working under a contract of apprenticeship in Scotland has their contract of apprenticeship terminated early due to redundancy. There is no clause in the contract allowing for early termination due to redundancy. Are they entitled to a statutory redundancy payment and damages for breach of contract?
Q&As
For information on apprenticeships in Scotland generally, see Practice Note: Apprenticeships in Scotland. The legal framework for apprenticeships in Scotland is different from that in England, which has a statutory scheme. For more information, see: • the section of Practice Note: Apprenticeships in Scotland entitled 'Legal framework for common law apprenticeships • Practice Note: Apprenticeships, which deals with the position in England An employee with over two years’ service
An employee works as a carer three days a week. They do not live in, and are in the normal course responsible for arranging and covering the cost of their own meals while at work. If the employee accompanies the employer and their family abroad to care for them while on holiday, is the employer obliged to cover the cost of the carer’s meals during the holiday, eg if they are required to accompany the employer to a restaurant and has to pay for her own meals, if the employment contract does not cover this situation? If the employer refuses to do so, would the cost the carer incurs to pay for food amount to a deduction which serves to reduce their pay for National Minimum Wage calculation purposes?
Q&As
Is the employer required to pay for the carer’s food while they are abroad? There is no statutory provision dealing with the question of whether, if an employee is asked (or required) to carry out their duties abroad for a period, the employer is required to pay the employee’s expenses during that
An employee, while in a personal relationship with the owner of the company that employs them, pays out a large sum of their own money on the refurbishment of a shop without asking that the money be repaid. The relationship ends, and the employee decides they want their money back. Can the employee's outlay be regarded as expenses for which they are entitled to be reimbursed?
Q&As
The question of what an employee is entitled to be paid (or repaid) will be governed by the law of contract. A contract can be made up of all or any of: • express terms • implied terms • imposed terms • incorporated terms For further information, see Practice Note: Types of contractual term
An employee’s employment with their original employer terminates and as part of the termination arrangements the employee is offered employment with another, associated, business in the group. In circumstances where the employee’s continuity of employment is preserved and there is no Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246 (TUPE) situation, do any of the claims that the employee has against the original employer for breach of contract and unlawful deduction from wages transfer to the new employer?
Q&As
Contractual and statutory claims arising from an employee’s employment must be brought against the employer liable for the unlawful conduct giving rise to those claims. In situations where there has been a relevant transfer, the provisions of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246 apply such that all the transferor's rights, powers, duties and liabilities under or in connection with employment contracts of transferring employees transfer to the transferee. For further information, see: • TUPE and asset purchases—overview • Practice Note: TUPE—transfer
An employer dismisses an employee for gross misconduct, then invites the employee to resign on the same day, which the employee does. Is the employer bound to pay the employee in lieu of the employee’s notice period?
Q&As
In this scenario, it would appear that: • the employer dismissed the employee • the employer then invited the employee to resign that same day, ie, without notice (presumably so that they do not have a dismissal on their record) • the employee accepted the employer’s invitation, and resigned that
An employer dismisses employees on notice for redundancy on account of the anticipated closure of the business. Subsequently, during the notice period, a business sale giving rise to a TUPE transfer is agreed, and is effected at the point the notice period expires. Can it be argued that the dismissals are automatically unfair because the transfer is the sole or principal reason for the dismissals, even though no TUPE transfer was envisaged at the point notices to terminate were issued?
Q&As
Where an employee of the transferor or the transferee is dismissed, whether before or after a relevant transfer, the employee is treated as automatically unfairly dismissed for the purposes of Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) if the sole or principal reason for the dismissal is 'the transfer' (the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE 2006) SI 2006/246, reg 7(1)). Whether a dismissal is by reason of the transfer is a question of fact for the tribunal to determine in the light of all the circumstances. If the employer can show that the dismissal
An employer enters into a collective redundancy consultation, at the end of which a number of employees are selected for redundancy. Those employees are given notice of termination by reason of redundancy, but, before the termination date, a change in circumstances means that the employer is able to push back the dismissals and keep those employees in employment for a further period. It accordingly extends the notice periods of those employees beyond their contractual notice entitlement, so that their dismissals will take effect in five months’ time. Is the employer required to start the collective consultation process afresh at this point, or would the original consultation process be sufficient?
Q&As
In considering this question, it will be useful to consider: • what is the trigger for the collective redundancy consultation obligation, and • how long a collective consultation remains ‘effective’ The relevant legislation, section 188(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULR(C)A 1992) reads: ‘…(1) Where an employer is proposing to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees at one establishment within a period of 90 days or
An employer has been paying one group of employees (Group A) a higher rate of pay than another group of employees (Group B) who do the same job. The pay difference has now been rectified, but could Group B bring claims for breach of contract and/or constructive unfair dismissal for the period when they were being paid less?
Q&As
This Q&A assumes that there is no need to give consideration to claims for equal pay or unlawful deduction from wages. Employers generally agree the basic rate and frequency at which they will pay their employees. Under section 1 and section 4 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, any details agreed at the start of the employment should be included in the employee’s written statement of particulars, as should any changes subsequently agreed (see Practice Note: Written
An employer has served a default notice to terminate a JCT Design & Build 2011 contract on the basis of the contractor's failure to proceed regularly and diligently with the performance of its obligations. If a new issue/ground for termination arises after service of the notice served specifying the default, can the employer use this new issue/ground in their argument for termination?
Q&As
Depending on the nature of the new issue/ground for termination that has occurred after service of the default notice specifying the contractor's failure to proceed regularly and diligently, the employer may have two options to consider as to how it might proceed. The JCT Design and Build Contract 2011 Edition provides as follows at Clause 8.3: ‘8.3.1 The provisions of clauses 8.4 to 8.7 are without prejudice to any other rights and remedies of the Employer. The provisions of clauses 8.9 and 8.10 and (in the case of termination under either of those clauses) the provisions of clause 8.12, are without prejudice to any other rights and remedies of the Contractor.’ The effect of this
An employer is providing that it will keep paying for private health care for an employee in a termination agreement. What tax liability will the employee have on that benefit?
Q&As
The first step is to establish whether such a benefit would be taxed as general earnings, as explained in Practice Note: How employment income is taxed—non-cash earnings or benefits. Assuming that it would not, it is then necessary to whether the benefit is brought into charge as a payment or benefit received in connection with the termination of employment which are not
An employer wishes to recognise one or more unions to cover all staff in bargaining units, but in order to have better representation of its non-unionised employees it would also like workforce representatives to participate in a joint consultative committee with union representatives. Are there any issues with this? Can union members be excluded from elections to become workforce representatives?
Q&As
An employer may ‘recognise’ a trade union for a number of different purposes, and at one of a number of different ‘levels’. Where a union has negotiating rights under the highest level of recognition, decisions on matters covered by those rights must be agreed bilaterally by the employer and the union, and may not be taken by the employer alone. This is also usually referred to as recognition for collective bargaining. For further information, see Practice Note: Trade union recognition, under the main section dealing with ‘Levels of trade union recognition’. It is important to note that it is only this highest level of recognition, ie recognition for collective bargaining, that is treated as recognition in law under the Trade