We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 87

ECJ rules on pay during maternity suspension

  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • -
  • European Union, United Kingdom
  • -
  • August 10 2010

The issue of pregnant workers' loss of supplementary allowances during maternity suspension and alternative work was considered by the ECJ in Gassmayr v Bundesminister fuer Wissenschaft und Forschung and Parviainen v Finnair Oyj

When does an employment contract terminate?

  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • May 19 2011

The Court of Appeal has revisited the thorny question of the point at which an employment contract terminates for common law purposes

Weight Watchers leaders are employees for tax purposes

  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • January 25 2012

The guidelines for identifying whether a relationship is one of employment or selfemployment are well-established, dating from Ready Mixed Concrete (SE) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance in 1968

Identity of potential transferee not necessary for TUPE

  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • June 23 2011

The EAT in Spaceright Europe Ltd v Ballavoine and another has followed the EAT’s decision in Harrison Bowden v Bowden in deciding that it was not necessary to identify a particular transferee in order to find that an employee had been automatically unfairly dismissed in the context of a TUPE transfer

Liability of administrators for acts of discrimination

  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • April 1 2011

In another case involving administrators, an employment tribunal somewhat controversially has held that the individual administrators could be liable as principals in an agency relationship with employees of a company in administration

EHRC press for review of Eweida and Ladele

  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • -
  • European Union, United Kingdom
  • -
  • October 31 2011

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) have expressed discomfort with the decisions in Eweida v British Airways plc and Ladele and McFarlane v United Kingdom and is intervening before the European Court of Human Rights

Retraction of dismissal only in exceptional cases

  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • August 10 2010

In Willoughby v CF Capital plc the EAT found that an attempted retraction of a dismissal by CF Capital plc of Ms Willoughby following discussions with her about changing her employment status was not valid

TUPE does not apply where there are fundamental changes in activities

  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • February 10 2012

In Enterprise Management Services Ltd v Connect-Up Ltd & Others, the EAT confirmed that there was no service provision change for the purposes of TUPE where the activities of an outgoing contractor (Enterprise) were not fundamentally the same as those of the incoming contractor (Connect), and where there was subsequently a ‘fragmentation’ of activities

Union acceptance of collective redundancy procedure results in reduction of protective award

  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • December 2 2010

In Lancaster University v The University and College Union the EAT held that where a union had accepted a flawed notification and consultation procedure for university staff on fixed term contracts over a period of twelve years, a tribunal was correct in reducing protective awards from 90 days' pay to 60 days

Protection from harassment: course of conduct

  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • July 20 2011

In Marinello v City of Edinburgh Council the Inner House of the Court of Session has held that an interval of 17 months between incidents of harrassment at work did not automatically mean that there could not be a course of conduct for the purposes of protection under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997