header-logo header-logo

15 December 2016 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7727 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 15 December 2016

nlj_7727_smith

Ian Smith finds clarity in recent employment cases

  • What is meant by an employer “refusing” a statutory break?
  • How should a tribunal deal with a final warning that is of dubious validity?
  • How should a tribunal deal with a redundancy conducted without acceptable consultation?
  • What exactly is the burden of proof on the employer?

The four cases appearing in this month’s collection of random thoughts provide clear answers to four specific questions well known to employment lawyers. The first arises in the context of working time law—what is meant by an employer “refusing” a statutory break? The next two are questions arising in fairly standard tribunal proceedings for dismissal—how should a tribunal deal with (i) a final warning that is of dubious validity, and (ii) a redundancy conducted without acceptable consultation? The fourth question is specific to the statutory action for detriment short of dismissal—what exactly is the burden of proof on the employer?

When does an employer “refuse” a statutory break?

Regulation 30(1) of the Working Time Regulations

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