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

Seddons GSC—Ben Marks

Seddons GSC—Ben Marks

Partner joins residential real estate team

Winckworth Sherwood—Shazia Bashir

Winckworth Sherwood—Shazia Bashir

Social housing team announces partner appointment

University of Manchester: The LLM driving tech-focused career growth

University of Manchester: The LLM driving tech-focused career growth

Manchester’s online LLM has accelerated career progression for its graduates

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll