header-logo header-logo

09 November 2012
Issue: 7537 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Employment

Abercrombie & others v Aga Rangemaster Ltd UKEAT/0099/12/SM, [2012] All ER (D) 334 (Oct)

The wording of s 28(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 did not preclude an agreed temporary variation constituting a change to an employee’s normal working hours so as to prevent the award of a guarantee payment merely because the variation was temporary. The focus had to be on the periods when the employees were “normally” required to work, and not when they were “permanently” required to work. That entailed asking what were the normal requirements and the wording showed that the mere fact that an arrangement was not permanent was not conclusive.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The government has pledged to ‘move fast’ to protect children from harm caused by artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots, and could impose limits on social media as early as the summer
All eyes will be on the Court of Appeal (or its YouTube livestream) next week as it sits to consider the controversial Mazur judgment
An NHS Foundation Trust breached a consultant’s contract by delegating an investigation into his knowledge of nurse Lucy Letby’s case
Draft guidance for schools on how to support gender-questioning pupils provides ‘more clarity’, but headteachers may still need legal advice, an education lawyer has said
Litigation funder Innsworth Capital, which funded behemoth opt-out action Merricks v Mastercard, can bring a judicial review, the High Court ruled last week
back-to-top-scroll