An employer may not make a deduction from the wages of any worker employed, or receive a payment from such a worker, unless: • it is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statutory provision or any relevant provision of the worker's contract, or • the worker has previously signified in writing his agreement or consent to the making of it For further information, see Practice Note: Deductions from wages. Where

An employer may not make a deduction from the wages of any worker employed by it, or receive a payment from such a worker, unless: • it is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statutory provision or any relevant provision of the worker's contract, or • the worker has previously signified in writing his or her agreement or consent to the making of it For further information, see Practice Note: Deductions from wages. A relevant agreement, such as a contract of employment, may specify that, where a worker leaves employment having taken more than their accrued holiday entitlement, they must reimburse their employer by a payment, or by undertaking additional work. In the absence of such a contractual

For the purposes of this Q&A, we have focused on the scenario where the principal (not necessarily as an employer) has an IPR indemnity clause in its favour, from an independent contractor not to infringe third party IPR. With regard to an employer relationship you may have to consider the limits of vicarious liability of the employer too; see Practice Notes: Liability of employers for the acts of their employees and others and Liability for independent contractors. We have limited this Q&A to cover a general overview of the likely defences which the contractor may evoke from the question posed. It should be noted that judgments of the court are not like statutes, and precedents are always, to some degree at least, fact-sensitive. While a case may fall within a principle as enunciated in a judgment, a consideration of the facts of the particular case may show that the principle

Once it is established that a claimant has the right to bring an unfair dismissal claim—in other words, that they were an employee, they were dismissed, their claim was presented in time and they have the requisite continuous employment, it will generally be for the employer to show: • what the reason or, if there was more than one, the principal reason was for dismissing the employee, and • that it was a potentially fair reason for dismissal For further information

A system of civil and criminal penalties for employers who hire illegal workers exists for employment commencing from 29 February 2008 under the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (IANA 2006). Under IANA 2006, s 15 employers who unwittingly employ an illegal worker (ie without immigration permission) are liable to pay a civil penalty unless they can benefit from the statutory excuse. For further information, see Practice Note: Illegal workers—civil and criminal sanctions. A correctly conducted right to work check can provide an employer with a statutory excuse against a civil penalty for employing a person illegally, should it be that the employee in question does not have, or loses, the right to

For general information on the ‘legitimate interests’ condition for lawful processing of personal data in Article 6(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), see Practice Note: The UK GDPR and DPA 2018: key data protection issues for employment lawyers—Personal data—lawful processing conditions. As mentioned in that Practice Note, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) guide to the GDPR: Legitimate interests breaks down the elements of the legitimate interests basis into a three-part test: • purpose test: is the controller pursuing a legitimate interest? • necessity test: is the processing necessary for that purpose? • balancing test: do the individual’s interests override the legitimate interest? The guide goes on to say that legitimate interests is most likely to be an appropriate basis where the controller uses data in ways that people would reasonably expect and that have a minimal privacy

A permanent health insurance scheme (PHI) typically guarantees a percentage of the employee’s salary will be paid by the insurer (usually to the employer for onward payment to the employee) after a period of absence (eg six months), if the employee is unable to work (either in his own occupation or, more unusually, in an employer-provided scheme, in any occupation). An employer with a PHI scheme will usually ensure that any obligation to pay contractual sick pay mirrors the benefit that will be payable under the PHI scheme. It therefore follows that the starting point

With some exceptions (eg in the building trade), it is customary for the employer to provide an employee with the equipment necessary to do their job (as opposed to a self-employed person who is usually expected to provide their own equipment). There are no particular statutory provisions relating to the provision of equipment to an employee who is homeworking. See Precedents: Policy—homeworking and Policy—temporary homeworking arrangements [Archived]. Paragraph 4 of Precedent: Policy—homeworking provides that the employer will provide all necessary equipment to a designated homeworker,

There are two parts to this Q&A. The first is whether the employer can rescind the award of an extension of time and the second is what happens if the contractor has relied on the extension of time granted. Power to rescind the award of an extension of time The answer to this part depends entirely on the terms of the contract pursuant to which the extension of time was granted. The first point to make is that this question assumes that the employer is in a position to rescind the grant of the extension of time. This can only be possible if there is no independent certifier under the contract and the employer is responsible for assessing and for awarding extensions of time. If there was an independent certifier such as an architect, contract administrator or engineer, then decisions regarding the award of an extension would be made by that independent certifier. The

The answer to this will depend on : • the type of pension scheme in issue • whether an issue relating to pension has specifically been raised and/or there is some issue in dispute or whether the employer is just trying to cover all eventualities in the settlement agreement The employer will also need to be clear about what claims the employer wishes to settle and against whom those claims would be brought. These issues are considered below. Further information is also available in our precedent Settlement agreement and its associated drafting notes. Occupational schemes: not possible to waive accrued rights unless existing dispute/doubt regarding rights or entitlements An occupational scheme is one set up by the employer for the benefit of the employees. This contrasts with a scheme run by a third party to which the employer and the employee contribute for the employee's benefit, usually referred to as a personal pension scheme or a group personal pension scheme. Most public sector schemes occupational schemes are statutory and

Under sections 1 to 3 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996), an employer is required, not later than two months after the beginning of employment, to provide an employee with an initial written statement of the particulars of employment including, among other things, ‘the scale or rate of remuneration or the method

Paragraph 14(2) of Schedule 9 to the Equality Act 2010 provides that it is not an age contravention for an employer to make arrangements for, or afford access to, the provision of insurance or a related financial service to or in respect of only such employees as have not attained whichever is the greater of the age of 65 and state