In each case, the employee had retired after long term sickness. The Employment tribunal had upheld their ability to claim arrears of sickness pay arising under the 1998 Regulations, as an unlawful deduction from their wages. They now appealed against a reversal of that decision followed by a decision in their favour by the ECJ.
Held: The employees were entitled to pursue their claims under the unlawful deductions provisions. The definition is section 27 of the 1996 Act should not be given the restricted interpretation decsribed by the Court of Appeal. As such claims were governed by the 1996 Act and not by the 1998 regulations there was not the absolute bar in bringing the claims more than three months after the deduction.
Lord Neuberger said that the question whether any proposed domestic claim is a true comparator with an EU law claim is context-specific: ‘It seems to me that the question of similarity, in the context of the principle of equivalence, has to be considered by reference to the context in which the principle is being invoked.’
Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
[2009] UKHL 31, [2009] IRLR 677, [2009] ICR 985, Times 15-Jun-2009
Bailii
Working Time Regulations (SI 1998 No 1833), Wages Act 1986, Employment Rights Act 1996 13(1) 823, Council Directive 93/104/EC, Council Directive 2003/88/EC of 4 November 2003, concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time
England and Wales
Citing:
At EAT – Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Ainsworth, Kilic, Stringer, Thwaites EAT 4-Feb-2004
EAT Working Time Regulations – Holiday pay . .
At Court of Appeal – Inland Revenue v Ainsworth and others CA 22-Apr-2005
The court considered the calculation of hours under the Regulations when the employee was on extended sickness leave of absence.
Held: Once an employee had exhausted their sick pay entitlement, it was not open to them in addition then to claim . .
Cited – Schultz-Hoff v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund (Social Policy) ECJ 24-Jan-2008
ECJ Directive 2003/88/EC working time arrangements Article 7 Right to paid annual leave minimal right of the compensatory leave not taken Fundamental social rights in Community law Loss of entitlement to the . .
At ECJ – Stringer and Others v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; Schultz-Hoff v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund ECJ 20-Jan-2009
(Grand Chamber) Several employees claimed that having been absent from work sick, they were entitled to carry forward their unused holiday entitlements, or if a former worker, to pay in lieu under the Working Time directive.
Held: The workers . .
Cited – Bristow v City Petroleum HL 1987
Lord Ackner set out the history of the legialation restricting deductions by employers from wages. . .
Cited – Delaney v Staples CA 1991
Any failure by an employer to pay any amount of wages properly payable to an employee amounts to a deduction from his wages for the purposes of section 7. The basic object of the 1986 Act is ‘to see that workers receive their wages in full at the . .
Cited – Delaney v Staples HL 15-Apr-1992
The claimant had been dismissed but had been given no payment in lieu of notice. She claimed to the Industrial Tribunal that this was an unlawful deduction from her wages and that therefore the Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction.
Held: The . .
Cited – United Kingdom v Council of the European Union ECJ 12-Nov-1996
A directive limiting the maximum work hours for all employees was validly made under art 118a as a Health and Safety measure.
LMA
- Measures appear initially to have derived from policies of job . .
See Also – Robinson-Steele v RD Retail Services Ltd; Clarke v Frank Staddon Ltd and similar ECJ 16-Mar-2006
The employers used a system of ‘rolled up’ holiday pay, so that staff received a sum equivalent to holiday pay throughout the year.
Held: Such a system was not in accordance with the Working Time Directive. The directive required that there . .Cited by:
Cited – Totel Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 26-Jul-2018
The taxpayer challenged the ‘pay first’ rule under VAT which required them, before challenging a VAT assessment, first to deposit the VAT said to be due under the assessment.
Held: The appeal failed. There had not been shown any true . .Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 August 2021; Ref: scu.346820
Comments are closed.