Ian Smith lets the Supreme Court & the Court of Appeal take centre stage in matters of statutory interpretation
- Deducting pay for strike days.
- Doctor in training has whistleblowing protection.
- Whistleblowing: was the disclosure ‘protected’?
Even a cursory glance at this column (and who is to say it’s worth any more?) shows just how dominant the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) is in the general, every day development of employment law. Unusually, this last month, however, we have had a decision of the Supreme Court and two of the Court of Appeal on three precise but important points of statutory interpretation: (1) how do you apportion an annual salary to establish a daily rate of pay?; (2) when is a doctor in training given protection as a whistle blower?; and (3) in a whistleblowing dismissal case, how do you decide if the disclosure in question was a ‘protected’ one?
Working days or calendar days?
Hartley v King Edward VI College [2017] UKSC 39 is an important and well known
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
