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: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Global finance group strengthened by returning partner in London

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

NEWS
The controversial Courts and Tribunals Bill has passed its second reading by 304 votes to 203, despite concerted opposition from the legal profession
The presumption of parental involvement is to be abolished, the Lord Chancellor David Lammy has confirmed
A highly experienced chartered legal executive has been prevented from representing her client in financial remedies proceedings, in a case that highlights the continued fallout from Mazur
Plans to commandeer 50%-75% of the interest on lawyers’ client accounts to fund the justice system overlook the cost and administrative burden of this on small and medium law firms, CILEX has warned
Lawyers have been asked for their views on proposals to change the penalties for assaulting a police officer
back-to-top-scroll