The Employment Appeal Tribunal has ruled that, where a worker has taken a period of unpaid holiday, they will not be entitled to a backdated payment for it (or any earlier periods) if they do not submit a claim within a three-month limitation period after the claim has arisen.(1) The European Court of Justice s (ECJ s) decision in
King v The Sash Window Workshop Ltd did not require a different approach.
Background
In 2017 in
King v The Sash Window Workshop Ltd, the ECJ ruled that where workers are not granted the paid holiday to which they are entitled under the EU Working Time Directive, they can carry over that right indefinitely until they have the opportunity to exercise it (for further details please see Workers denied paid holiday can carry over rights until termination ). When workers employment terminates, employers must pay them in lieu of the holiday that they did not take.
Cashiered – supermarket staff succeed in Supreme Court - To bring an equal pay claim, an employee has to point to a comparator of the opposite sex doing like work, work rated as.
MONEYWEB
app instead? 07:57
Image: Micah Green/Bloomberg
Some chief executive officers are so eager for their employees to get vaccinated against Covid-19 that theyâre granting workers time off or cash incentives to get shots.
In the US, retailer Lidl is giving its staff $200, while Aldi, Dollar General Corp. and Trader Joeâs Co. are offering extra hours of pay. Online grocery delivery firm Instacart Inc. is providing a $25 stipend for workers and contractors. Yogurt makers Chobani LLC and Danone SA are offering as much as six hours of paid leave, and the French company says it will cover the cost of inoculation in countries where vaccines arenât free.
CEOs Become Vaccine Activists as Back-to-Office Push Grows wealthmanagement.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from wealthmanagement.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
On the facts found in the present case, the employment tribunal (the ET) had been entitled to find that the respondent drivers were ‘workers’ who worked for Uber London under ‘worker’s contracts’, within the meaning of the statutory definition (s 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996). The Supreme Court (the court), in dismissing Uber’s appeal, held that that had been the only conclusion which the ET could reasonably have reached and, accordingly, it affirmed the conclusion of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, and that of the majority of the Court of Appeal, that the ET had been entitled to decide both questions in the respondents’ favour. Further, the court held that the ET had note erred in finding that: (i) periods during which its three conditions were met constituted ‘working time’ for the purpose of the Working Time Regulations 1998, SI 1998/1833; (ii) drivers’ working hours should be classified as ‘unmeasured work’, and (iii) the respondents’ working