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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll