The EAT recently handed down its decision in the case of Publicis Consultants v O’Farrell, in which the employer (“Publicis”) was found to be in breach of contract in respect of a failure to pay notice pay to a departing employee, even though it had in fact made payment of an equivalent sum of money to the employee
The Court of Appeal has lifted the interim injunctions previously awarded by the High Court in favour of Serco and London Midland against the RMT and ASLEF which had prevented the unions from calling their members out on strike as planned.
In the recent case of Worrall v Wilmott Dixon Partnerships Limited , the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that terms in collective agreements will not be incorporated into an employee's contract of employment unless they are agreed or specifically brought to the employee's attention.
The 20092010 Annual Statistics for the Tribunals Service were published at the end of last month.
In the recent case of Malone and Others v British Airways Plc the High Court held that it was not apt for provisions relating to crewing levels contained within a collective agreement to be incorporated into individual contracts of employment.
The general position in employment law is that an employer may not vary an employee's terms and conditions without first obtaining the employee's express consent to the variation.
The extent of employers’ obligations to inform and consult employees in a TUPE situation was considered in a recent Court of Appeal case of Royal Mail v Communication Workers Union (CWU) arising from the sale of post offices to WH Smith.
The latest official statistics released by the Employment Tribunal Service show that for the year April 2008 to March 2009 the number of claims accepted by Employment Tribunals decreased from 189,303 to 151,028 - a reduction of 20.
Back in November we reported the case of Radecki v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council where the EAT held that the removal of Mr Radecki from the Council's payroll, even with his knowledge and arguably his consent, did not in itself terminate the employment relationship.
The EAT has stressed the importance of expressly stating the fact that dismissal is contemplated in step 1 letters pursuant to the statutory dismissal and disciplinary procedures.