EAT TIME OFF: Parental leave/dependant
The employee was told on 8 December that her childminder was unavailable for 22 December. She did all she could to make alternative care arrangements but was unsuccessful. She asked the employers for the day off, under s57A(1)(d) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, but they refused and subsequently disciplined her when she stayed at home to look after her children. The Employment Tribunal found that she had been subjected to a detriment for taking time off when, under s57A(1)(d), she was entitled to take that time off.
Held on appeal by the employers (1) that there was no warrant for the insertion of the words ‘sudden and’ or ‘in emergency’ into s57A(1)(d). Although Directive 96/34 which led to the introduction of s57A into the 1996 Act provided for narrow protection, Parliament had provided wider protection than the minimum required by the Directive; (2) that the passing of time between the employee’s discovery of the need for making alternative arrangements and the taking of time off was to be considered in the application of the word ‘necessary’ s57A(1); the word ‘unexpected’ in s57A(1)(d) was an ordinary word when applied on the facts of each case and should not be supplemented by the further words proposed; (3) the Employment Tribunal had made a factual decision which was not based on any error of law.
Judges:
Burke QC J
Citations:
[2008] UKEAT 0093 – 08 – 2706, [2009] IRLR 28, [2009] ICR 116
Links:
Statutes:
Employment Rights Act 1996 47C 49(1)(a) 57A, Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999 19, European Community Parental Leave Directive 96/34
Citing:
Cited – Qua v John Ford Morrison (Solicitors) EAT 14-Jan-2003
The claimant appealed the refusal of her claim for a finding that her dismissal was automatically unfair. She had been employed for less than a year, and had taken several absences to care for her child. She claimed protection saying that her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276685
