Articles


01.07.2009
Employment Law Update

Jonathan Walters rounds up recent Employment news.
  1. Its midsummer and what better excuse is needed to travel to the beautiful north of our country.  The Employment Group in Civitas have returned from a delightful trip to Llandudno where we delivered a successful series of seminars to employment lawyers in North Wales on behalf of the Law Society. Whilst the weather outside was somewhat inclement the attendees participated in a   full programme of seminars and group work sessions. In group work the participants were set a series of difficult and thought-provoking questions which were the subject of much debate and discussion.  Our thanks go to the Law Society for helping to organise the day and to the course participants who participated fully and incisively in the day’s activities. 
     
  2. Civitas Employment Group is committed to providing an all-Wales service to solicitors and clients and to that end we will be arranging further seminars throughout Wales in the course of the following months. It is ever more important that the legal profession in Wales responds to the fast changing developments in the administration of our country and to that end we welcome the opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to all lawyers within Wales. Our only regret was that we missed the opportunity to sample the Indian Cuisine in Conwy. We attended too late i.e. 10.15 p.m!!!
     
  3. Back to basics then and there have been a number of interesting decisions in the last month in the Appellate Courts.  The House of Lords has given Judgment in the case of Stringer v HMRC. In that case the House of Lords has now held that claims for unpaid holiday can be pursued as unauthorised deductions from wages as well as under the Working Time Regulations 1998.  It is to be noted that the time limits for workers under the provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996 are more generous than under the Working Time Regulations 1998.  It will no doubt be remembered that the claim for unlawful deductions under the Employment Rights Act 1996 can be brought within three months of the last in the series of deductions therefore allowing the claim to be made for more than three months’ worth of underpayments.
     
  4. Important guidance has been given by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in the case of Central and Northwestern London NHS Trust v Abimbola UK EAT 2009/0542 in which case the Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that when considering whether to make an order for reinstatement under Section 116 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 the Tribunal has to decide whether there still exists mutual trust and confidence between the Respondent and the Claimant.  That issue was relevant when addressing the question of whether or not it was practicable to comply with an order for reinstatement. 
     
  5. In Verma v Harrogate and District NHS Foundation Trust UK EAT 0155-09 the EAT held that it was illogical for an employment Judge to order the Respondents to pay Counsel’s fees for attending a PHR and preparing a skeleton argument but not to permit the Claimant to recover the costs incurred by his solicitors in carrying out the directions of the previous Judge who had heard the CMD. This case also serves as a warning and reminder for Respondent’s solicitors that unsuccessful technical arguments will be met with applications for costs and, perhaps more importantly, orders for costs. 
     
  6. In Eagles v Rugged Systems Limited UK EAT/0018/09 it was held that negotiations for the purpose of arriving at a compromise agreement is a relevant procedure within the meaning of Regulation 15(2) of the Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004.  The effect of the applicability of the Regulations was to extend time for bringing the claim under the said provisions by three months. 
     
  7. In McBride v Standards Board for England UK EAT/0092/09 it was held that it is permissible for an Employment Judge in an appropriate case to rule on the admissibility of evidence and in particular whether witnesses may be called by a party at a final hearing. I attended at the Cardiff Employment Tribunal User Committee meeting recently and warning was given that advocates need to be fully prepared to identify the issues in a case at the CMD and to justify the calling of witnesses and likely time estimates. CMDs will no longer simply be a rubber stamping directions hearing: the case will be actively managed.
 
Jonathan Walters


< Go Back