This tool will help you:
Cases on appeal provides news on key case law developments that are expected.
national minimum wage | sleep-ins | care workers
In Royal Mencap Society v Tomlinson-Blake; Shannon v Rampersad and another (t/a Clifton House Residential Home)  IRLR 932 CA, the Court of Appeal heard two appeals together because they concern the same issue. The issue for the Court of Appeal was whether or not employees who sleep-in and carry out duties only if required engage in "time work" for the full duration of the night shift, or whether or not they are entitled to the national minimum wage only when they are awake and carrying out relevant duties.
The Court of Appeal held that sleep-in shifts do not count as "time work" for the purposes of the national minimum wage legislation.
The Supreme Court granted Ms Tomlinson-Blake, supported by Unison, leave to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court heard the appeal on 12 and 13 February 2020.
annual leave | holiday pay | term-time workers | zero hours contracts
In Harpur Trust v Brazel  IRLR 1012 CA, the Court of Appeal held that holiday pay for "part-year workers" should not be calculated on a pro rata basis, but by applying the approach set out in s.224 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and calculating average weekly remuneration over the previous 12 weeks. The Court of Appeal acknowledged that calculating holiday pay without a pro rata reduction for part-year workers might produce perceived inequities, but the Court did not consider it to be unfair.
On 19 June 2020, the Supreme Court granted Harpur Trust leave to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision.
age discrimination | indirect discrimination | justification
In Heskett v Secretary of State for Justice EAT/0149/18, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the tribunal decision that absence of means, not "costs alone", justified a discriminatory pay policy.
The Court of Appeal granted Mr Heskett leave to appeal the EAT's decision. The Court of Appeal heard the appeal in May 2020 and reserved its decision.
trade unions | collective bargaining | unlawful inducements
In Kostal UK Ltd v Dunkley and others  IRLR 428 EAT, the EAT held that an employer offered unlawful inducements when it attempted to bypass collective bargaining with a trade union by making pay offers directly to its members.
Kostal UK Ltd appealed the EAT decision to the Court of Appeal. In Kostal UK Ltd v Dunkley and others  IRLR 817 CA, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the tribunal decision. The Court of Appeal held that the employer had asked the workforce if it would agree a particular term on this occasion; it had not sought a permanent change in its relationship with the union.
The Supreme Court granted the claimants permission to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision. The Supreme Court is due to hear the appeal on 18 May 2021.
employment status | workers | self-employed
In this high-profile case, Uber drivers regarded by the company as self-employed claimed that they are in fact workers.
In the employment tribunal decision of 28 October 2016 (Aslam and others v Uber BV and others  IRLR 4 ET), the tribunal held that the Uber drivers are workers.
This means that they are entitled to receive basic worker rights such as the national minimum wage and paid annual leave.
Uber appealed to the EAT against the first-instance decision. In Uber BV and others v Aslam and others  IRLR 97 EAT, the EAT agreed with the tribunal that Uber drivers are workers and dismissed the appeal.
Uber appealed to the Court of Appeal against the EAT decision. In Uber BV and others v Aslam and others  IRLR 257 CA the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and confirmed that Uber drivers are workers.
The Supreme Court heard Uber's appeal against the Court of Appeal decision on 21 and 22 July 2020.
equal pay | comparator | common terms
In Asda Stores Ltd v Brierley and others  IRLR 335 CA, a case that involves over 37,000 claimants and is the largest equal pay case of its kind in the private sector, the Court of Appeal held that workers in Asda supermarkets (who are mainly female) are entitled to compare their pay with the pay of depot workers (who are mainly male) because common terms of employment apply.
The Supreme Court heard Asda's appeal against the Court of Appeal decision on 13 and 14 July 2020.
annual leave | holiday pay | voluntary overtime
In Flowers and others v East of England Ambulance Trust EAT/0235/17, the EAT held that voluntary overtime must be included in the calculation of holiday pay for ambulance workers with a pattern of voluntary overtime that is sufficiently regular and settled.
East of England Ambulance Trust appealed the EAT decision to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Flowers and others  IRLR 798 CA. The Court held that ambulance workers are contractually entitled to have voluntary overtime included in the calculation of their holiday pay and, under the Working Time Directive (2003/88/EC), to have it included where it is sufficiently regular and settled.
The Supreme Court granted East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust leave to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision. The Supreme Court is due to hear the appeal on 22 June 2021.
annual leave | holiday pay | overtime | series of deductions
In Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and another v Agnew and others  IRLR 782 NICA, the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal rejected the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling in Bear Scotland Ltd and others v Fulton and others; Hertel (UK) Ltd v Woods and others; Amec Group Ltd v Law and others  IRLR 15 EAT and refused to limit claims for overtime non-payments.
The Supreme Court granted the Northern Ireland Police Service leave to appeal the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal's decision. The Supreme Court is due to hear the appeal on 23 and 24 June 2021.
direct sex discrimination | maternity discrimination | comparators
In Commissioner of the City of London Police v Geldart EAT/0032/19, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that a failure to pay a London allowance to a police officer on maternity leave constituted direct sex discrimination and no comparator was required.
The EAT held that s.18 of the Equality Act 2010, which prohibits pregnancy and maternity discrimination, "is not an exclusive statement of the circumstances in which a claimant can complain of discrimination by reason of pregnancy or maternity". The EAT held that the principle established in Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd (No.2)  IRLR 645 HL meant that s.13 of the Equality Act 2010, which prohibits direct sex discrimination, did not require Mrs Geldart to prove that a man would have been treated differently.
On 4 March 2020, the Court of Appeal granted the Commissioner leave to appeal the EAT's decision. The Court of Appeal is due to hear the appeal on 13 or 14 January 2021.
I would certainly recommend XpertHR for its up-to-date legal information and ability to make one’s life much easier at the click of a button.
Rebecca Lomas, HR administrator, Nielsen UK
The materials and information included in the XpertHR service are provided for reference purposes only. They are not intended either as a substitute for professional advice or judgment or to provide legal or other advice with respect to particular circumstances. Use of the service is subject to our terms and conditions.
Reed Business Information Limited trading as XpertHR is an Appointed Representative of Markel International Insurance Company Limited trading as Markel Legal Expenses Insurance which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.
© 2020 Reed Business Information Ltd
© 2020 Reed Business Information Ltd