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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

London tech and comms team boosted by telecoms and regulatory hires

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll