header-logo header-logo

25 June 2015 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7658 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 25 June 2015

nlj_7658_smith

It’s all in a day’s work for Ian Smith as he reviews the latest employment decisions

It could well be argued that the one thing you should never do in employment law is to ask a simple question—the chances of a simple answer tend to be disappearingly small. The decision of the Court of Appeal in Hartley v King Edward VI College [2015] EWCA Civ 455, [2015] All ER (D) 179 (May) given by Elias LJ, shows this nicely.

Hartley v King Edward VI College

The apparently simple question was this—if a salaried employee strikes for a day, how much pay does he or she forfeit? The apparently simple answer is “a day’s pay”, but how is that to be calculated? Here, the college hit by strike action deducted 1/260th of the annual salary (ie a “working days” calculation), on the basis that the contract provided for that number of days’ “directed” work per annum. The union argued that it should only be 1/365th of annual salary (ie a “calendar days” calculation). The

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

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
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
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
back-to-top-scroll