Ian Smith follows interesting turns of events at the Employment Appeal Tribunal
The end of the legal year saw a flurry of interesting cases in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). Three topics are considered here, involving five cases. The first adds an important qualification to a sick employee’s right to make back-claims for holiday and holiday pay not taken due to the sickness absence; it helps to clarify this evolving area, though it has to be said that the words “legislation” and “judicial” come to mind and one cannot help thinking that it would be much better if these matters had been sorted out in the Working Time Regulations themselves. This is followed by two pairs of cases. The first pair concerns the potentially difficult possibility for the employer of having (enforced) contractual changes challenged as unlawful age discrimination. The reasoning is consistent in the cases, which suggest in general a relatively pro-employer outcome, providing that it behaves with a modicum of fairness. The second pair of cases, however, show quite a marked divergence of approach by two High Court judges
