Court Cases
Employment status
Cable & Wireless Plc v Muscat [2006] EWCA 220
Mr Muscat worked for Cable & Wireless under an agreement with an agency to which he provided his services via a limited company. On the facts of the case he was an employee of Cable & Wireless. The Court of Appeal endorsed the view in Dacas v Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 217 that the fact that wages were paid by a third party (here the agency) did not mean that there was no mutuality of obligations. Nor did the fact that Mr. Muscat had an express contract for services with the agency preclude the existence of an implied contract of employment with Cable & Wireless which could be inferred through conduct. Click here for further information.
Part-time workers regulations
Matthews & Ors v Kent & Medway Towns Fire Authority & Ors [2006] UKHL 8
Whether fire-fighters who worked part-time could compare themselves with full-time firefighters under the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations. The House of Lords remitted the matter to the Tribunal to reconsider whether the work they were engaged in was the same or broadly similar within the meaning of Regulation 2(4)(a)(ii). Click here for further information.
Part-time workers and pensions
Powerhouse Retail Ltd v Burroughs [2006] UKHL 13
The House of Lords has upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal that as liability for part-timers occupational pension claims under the Equal Pay Act does not pass with TUPE transfers, the claim against the transferor must be made within six months of the date of the transfer. Click here for further information.
Statutory grievance procedures
Arnold Clarke Ltd v Richard G Stewart UKEATS/0052/05/RN
A letter from a solicitor on behalf of an employee had already resigned which was marked ‘without prejudice’ did meet the requirements of the statutory grievance procedure even though neither the word grievance nor the statutory procedures were mentioned and even though it contained an ultimatum that proceedings would be issued in 14 days if terms were not agreed. Click here for further information.
Spillett v Tesco Stores Ltd UKEAT/0475/05/DZM
The transcript of the case, mentioned in the last bulletin, can be found at the link below. The EAT held that the expression ?original time limit? contained in section 32(4) Employment Act 2002 refers to the time limit provided, in this case in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which includes giving a tribunal the power to consider a complaint made outside the primary limitation period where it is just and equitable to do so. Click here for further information.
Reconsideration of case management decisions
Hart v English Heritage UKEAT/0055/06/CK & UKEAT/0074/06/CK
The word ?order? in Rule 10 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Procedure) Regulations 2004 should be construed so as to cover all decisions taken by a tribunal in the proper exercise of its case management powers, save where those decisions are subject to the review procedure in rules 33 and 34. However there will usually need to be a material change of circumstances to warrant reconsideration or, exceptionally, where a party wishes to argue a potentially significant argument which it could have, but did not, pursue at an earlier hearing. Click here for further information.
Legislation
Age discrimination
The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 were laid before Parliament on 9 March 2006. Subject to the approval by both Houses of Parliament, the Regulations will come into force on 1 October 2006. The text of the draft regulations and explanatory notes are available at the link below. Click here for further information.
