Recent Blog Posts

17/05/2013: Majority of Supreme Court hold that Methodist minister was not an employee
16/05/2013: Court ruling a win against ‘big boys’
14/05/2013: Relocation requirement following grievance about racist comments was not victimisation
10/05/2013: Queen's Speech 2013: implications for employment law
09/05/2013: Homophobic comments by football club shareholder could shift the burden of proof in discrimination c

Blog Archive

May 2013
17/05/2013: Majority of Supreme Court hold that Methodist minister was not an employee
16/05/2013: Court ruling a win against ‘big boys’
14/05/2013: Relocation requirement following grievance about racist comments was not victimisation
10/05/2013: Queen's Speech 2013: implications for employment law
09/05/2013: Homophobic comments by football club shareholder could shift the burden of proof in discrimination c
07/05/2013: Equality Act covers post-employment victimisation after all
02/05/2013: The free movement of workers
01/05/2013: Employment Tribunal Fees
April 2013
26/04/2013: New employee shareholder employment status finally set to become law
19/04/2013: Court of Appeal Judgment Merck v Sigma Pharmaceuticals
18/04/2013: Government approves new national minimum wage rate of £6.31
15/04/2013: Confidentiality agreement: interpretation
11/04/2013: Territorial Jurisdiction
10/04/2013: Corporate governance: trade union voting and engagement guidelines
04/04/2013: Redundancy situation existed even though replacement for under-performing employee had already been
03/04/2013: New quarterly tribunal statistics published
March 2013
26/03/2013: 70 job losses at defence firm in Gloucestershire
22/03/2013: TUPE: administrator's dismissal of football club employees was not for an ETO reason
20/03/2013: German employee married to British soldier not entitled to bring unfair dismissal claim
18/03/2013: Court of Appeal Dismissal of Baby P social workers following second disciplinary procedure was fair
13/03/2013: Parental leave entitlement increased on 8 March 2013
12/03/2013: Crufts 2013 - Blondie gets Best of Breed
11/03/2013: Equality Act 2010 does not cover post-employment victimisation
08/03/2013: Using assessment centre competency tests as part of redundancy selection process was unreasonable
06/03/2013: ERRB Report Stage amendments approved by Lords
04/03/2013: Tribunal not required to look behind previously issued final warning
February 2013
27/02/2013: Employment Tribunal had been right to reject a Catholic sub-editor's religious harassment claim
25/02/2013: Share buybacks: government response to consultation on implementation of Nuttall review
22/02/2013: Whistleblowing: disclosure after employment ends can be protected
18/02/2013: Age discrimination: requirement for law degree not objectively justified

Workers falling ill during statutory annual leave must be entitled to reschedule the affected leave

29 June 2012

The Europen Court of Justice ("ECJ") has held that a worker who becomes unfit for work during a period of statutory annual leave must, under Article 7(1) of the EC Working Time Directive, be entitled to reschedule the period of planned leave that coincides with the period of unfitness for work. It was already clear from Pereda v Madrid Movilidad SA that a worker who becomes unfit for work before a period of statutory annual leave must be able to take that leave at a later date. In the ECJ's view, it would be arbitrary, and contrary to the purpose of the Directive, to take a different approach where a worker falls ill after the leave has started. (Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED) v Federación de Asociaciones Sindicales (FASGA) and others C-78/11 (ECJ).)