RSS Feed

Legal Updates: Legal Updates 2011

More Articles: Latest Popular Archives
The HRDirector Legal Updates

Suitability relates to the individual

In Bird v Stoke-on-Trent Primary Care Trust, the EAT confirmed that when judging whether a job is a suitable alternative to being made redundant, the two questions to be asked are: whether the alternative job is suitable employment for the employee and whether the refusal of the job was reasonable?

Article by: | Published: 22 August 2011

The HRDirector Legal Updates

Correct test for disregarding contractual terms

In Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and others, the Supreme Court held that courts should look outside the written terms of a contract to determine what was actually agreed, where it is argued that those terms do not reflect the reality of the working relationship.

Article by: | Published: 22 August 2011

The HRDirector Legal Updates

New website to help vulnerable workers

The TUC has launched a new website to help people find out more about their basic rights at work, from the National Minimum Wage, to working time and annual leave entitlements, together with advice on enforcement.

Article by: | Published: 22 August 2011

The HRDirector Legal Updates

Request must be considered in good faith

In Compass Group plc v Ayodele the EAT held that the statutory retirement procedure can be breached where requests to work on beyond retirement are not considered in good faith.

Article by: | Published: 28 July 2011

The HRDirector Legal Updates

AG’s opinion on holidays and sickness absence

In KHS AG v Schulte the Advocate General has delivered an opinion that under EU law, workers on long-term sick leave do not have the right to accumulate paid annual leave, or payments in lieu of that leave, without any time limitation.

Article by: | Published: 28 July 2011

The HRDirector Legal Updates

Payment was a gift, not notice pay

In Publicis Consultants UK Ltd v O'Farrell the EAT held that the wording used in a dismissal letter referring to an ‘ex gratia’ payment did not suggest or imply that it was a payment in lieu of notice owed to the employee.

Article by: | Published: 28 July 2011