In May Gurney Ltd v Adshead and others EAT/0150/06 the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that the remuneration of employees entitled to a perfomance bonus "does vary with the amount of work done". Accordingly the amount of a week's pay for the purpose of calculating holiday pay will be determined by taking the employees' average pay over the 12 weeks preceding their holiday.
In Anderson v Jarvis Hotels EATS/0062/05, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that an employee was contractually entitled to be paid for periods when he was required to sleep on the employer's premises, even though he rarely had to carry out any work during these periods.
In MacCartney v Oversley House Management, the EAT the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that an employee who was required to remain on call at or close to her place of work was 'working' even if her employer provided her with a home at her place of work.
In Scottbridge Construction Ltd v Wright the Court of Session upholds the EAT's decision that a "nightwatchman" who was required to be on his employer's premises for 14 hours each night was entitled to be paid the national minimum wage in respect of all those hours, even though, while required to respond to an alarm at any time, he only had to undertake specific tasks that took around four hours a night, and was permitted to sleep if he chose to when not carrying out those tasks.
The Court of Appeal gives important guidance on how far tribunals need to go in exploring the circumstances of a claim. Plus cases on protected disclosure, redundancy selection, discrimination by an agent, working time exemptions and constructive dismissal.
In Lawson and others v Edmonds, the Court of Appeal holds that, although a pupil barrister did make a legally binding contract with the members of the chambers where she was a pupil, she did not enter into, or work under, a contract of apprenticeship or an equivalent contract.
An assessment process for performance-related pay purposes, which led to a woman being paid £780 a year less than men on like work, suffered from confusion, double counting and an absence of transparency, rules a Norwich industrial tribunal (Chair: D R Crome) in Latham v Eastern Counties Newspapers Ltd.