header-logo header-logo

22 February 2007 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7261 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment Law Brief: 23 February 2007

The case law in the last month has demonstrated a current approach to the statutory procedures that seems to vary from the weariedly explanatory to the downright exasperated.

The Department of Trade and Industry has announced a review of these ‘rebarbative’ (© Mr Justice Underhill) procedures. Apparently the Law Society has come straight out for complete repeal. Certain of Her Majesty’s justices may not be far behind them at the barricades. However, before looking at the latest pronouncements on this, it is worth considering two potentially important cases for practitioners on an employee’s implied duty to take on different work in an emergency—with the twist that this emergency was the employee’s own sickness—and on instances where an employee may not be able to bring a statutory action for deductions from wages.

IMPLIED OBLIGATION TO DO OTHER WORK

The old case of Millbrook Furnishing Industries Ltd v McIntosh [1981] IRLR 309 is authority that there may be an implied term that employees will undertake duties outside their contracts if:
(i) the work is suitable;

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

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
Could an online LLM in Commercial and Technology Law expand your career options?
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
back-to-top-scroll