header-logo header-logo

14 January 2010
Issue: 7400 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

EAT rules two jobs allowed if compatible

Individuals can be employed by different employers at the same time, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled.

In Prison Officers Association v Gough [2009] UKEAT 0405/09_1712, the respondents were employed by the Prison Service and were also officials of the Prison Officers Association, the trade union for prison staff.

Mr Justice Silber considered whether the respondents were employed by the Association in “light of the functions they performed for them”, and whether they could be employees of both. He held that they could, as long as the jobs were compatible with each other.

Silber J ruled that it was proper to apply the test set out in 102 Social Club and Institute Ltd v Bickerton [1977] ICR 911 to the respondents’ work. These covered factors such as whether the payment was fixed in advance, like a salary, or whether it was decided at the end of the year; the extent and weight of the duties performed; and the size of the payment.

Delivering judgment, Silber J said: “There is no different question of principle which precludes a person having two jobs with separate employers at the same time provided they are compatible with each other.

“In the present case, it is not said that there could be anything incompatible with employees of the Prison Service also being employees of the respondent.”

 

Issue: 7400 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll