header-logo header-logo

09 November 2012
Issue: 7537 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Employment

Abercrombie & others v Aga Rangemaster Ltd UKEAT/0099/12/SM, [2012] All ER (D) 334 (Oct)

The wording of s 28(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 did not preclude an agreed temporary variation constituting a change to an employee’s normal working hours so as to prevent the award of a guarantee payment merely because the variation was temporary. The focus had to be on the periods when the employees were “normally” required to work, and not when they were “permanently” required to work. That entailed asking what were the normal requirements and the wording showed that the mere fact that an arrangement was not permanent was not conclusive.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll