Pay and benefits
In Bateman and others v Asda Stores Ltd EAT/0221/09, the EAT held that the employer was entitled to change its employees' pay arrangements without their consent because it had reserved a clear contractual right to make unilateral variations to their terms and conditions of employment.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that a sleep-in payment was not an allowance for the purpose of the national minimum wage. Therefore it should not be excluded from the calculation of the hourly rate paid by the employer.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that the national minimum wage relates to a worker's basic rate of pay, even if he or she normally works only at night at an enhanced rate.
This week's case of the week, provided by DLA Piper, covers unfair dismissal and pension loss.
In HM Revenue and Customs v Stringer and others sub nom Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Ainsworth and others [2009] IRLR 677 HL, the House of Lords held that a claim for unpaid holiday due under the Working Time Regulations 1998 can be brought as an unlawful deductions from wages claim under ss.13 and 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
In Small and others v Boots Co and another [2009] All ER (D) 200 (Jan) EAT, the EAT held that the fact that the employer had stated that a bonus was discretionary did not necessarily mean that it had no contractual effect. The employer's discretion could relate to: whether or not to operate a bonus system at all; whether or not to award a bonus in a given year; or the amount of bonus to be awarded.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employment tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear claims against British Airways for non-payment of flying allowances to cabin crew who had not been able to fly because of an airport closure.
The Court of Appeal has held that paying bonuses to employees who worked night shifts did not constitute sex discrimination.
This week's case of the week, provided by DLA Piper, covers working time.
In Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council v Bainbridge and Equality and Human Rights Commission and other appeals [2008] IRLR 776, the Court of Appeal held that a transitional pay protection scheme that, in effect, preserved the previous (unlawful) pay levels of men, while failing to offer equivalent higher pay to women engaged on work rated as equivalent, perpetuated historic indirect sex discrimination and was not objectively justified.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to pay and benefits.