header-logo header-logo

Employment law brief: 15 December 2016

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll