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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 287

TUPE update
  • Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • October 14 2010

In this update on recent cases dealing with issues arising under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE), we report on an EAT decision on what amounts to "measures", requiring information and consultation of employees and a decision that a temporary cessation of activities did not prevent a TUPE transfer


Interrupted rest breaks are not "on-call time" requiring payment
  • Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • November 12 2010

In the case of Martin v Southern Health & Social Care Trust, the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal (NICA) ruled that, although a nurse's rest breaks during night shift were often interrupted due to medical emergencies or other more mundane administrative matters, this did not mean that those rest breaks amounted to "on-call time" for which she was entitled to be paid


Office gossip can amount to sex discrimination and harassment
  • Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • October 14 2010

In Nixon v Ross Coates Solicitors the EAT held that gossip about an employee's pregnancy can amount to pregnancy discrimination and sex harassment


Redundancy during maternity leave: question of "suitable alternative vacancy" to be determined by employer
  • Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • October 14 2010

In the recent case of Simpson v Endsleigh Insurance Services Ltd, the EAT has confirmed that, in the context of a redundancy situation, whether a particular alternative vacancy is suitable for a woman on maternity leave is a question to be determined objectively by the employer, having regard for the employee's personal circumstances


Acquired Rights Directive applies to transfers by non-contractual employer
  • Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP
  • European Union, United Kingdom
  • November 11 2010

The ECJ has recently held that the Acquired Rights Directive (ARD) applies on the transfer of an undertaking by a group company where a different group company employs the affected employees, provided they are permanently assigned to the undertaking being transferred (Albron Catering v FNV Bondgenoten and Roest


Coalition Government will review TUPE obligations for the voluntary sector
  • Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • November 11 2010

The Coalition Government has promised to review the impact of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) on charities, as part of its plans to cut red tape in the voluntary sector


Notice of dismissal and notice of intention not the same thing
  • Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • June 11 2010

To bring an unfair dismissal claim, a claimant must normally show that they have been dismissed (including the non-renewal of a fixed term contract) or that they have been constructively dismissed


Damages for breach of contractual disciplinary procedure not limited to notice period
  • Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • June 11 2010

The Court of Appeal has held that an employee can, in principle, recover damages for loss of future employment prospects caused by an employer's breach of a contractual disciplinary procedure (Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust


Costly age discrimination claim succeeds against NHS
  • Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • June 11 2010

A 60-year-old lady has been awarded £187,000 compensation after being passed over for promotion by Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust


Without prejudice communications
  • Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • June 11 2010

The EAT has confirmed, in Woodward v Santander, that discrimination is not a special category when it comes to considering exceptions to the without prejudice rule