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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll