Please sign in with your existing account details.
Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.
Privacy statement - Terms and conditions
Forgotten your password?
You have exceeded the maximum number of login attempts for this email address and your account has been locked. An email has been sent to member of Browne Jacobson's web team and some one will be contacting you over the next two working days with details of how to change your password.
Are you sure you want to remove this item from you pinned content?
The decision in Publicis Consultants v O’Farrell is a stark warning to employers to be careful how they label termination payments in dismissal letters.
O’Farrell claimed breach of contract because Publicis’ dismissed her on four days’ notice instead of her three months’ contractual notice. O’Farrell was therefore entitled to claim damages for breach of contract, equivalent to her 3 months’ notice. However, her dismissal letter stated that she would receive a “ex gratia payment equivalent to three month’s salary”. Publicis claimed that the ex gratia payment was intended to compensate her for her period of notice and therefore should be offset against her notice pay. The EAT held the money was unambiguously advanced as an ex gratia payment and should not therefore be offset against her claim.
Care should be taken when labelling payments as ex gratia and it be made clear that the payment is intended to compensate the employee for their loss of notice to ensure it will be offset against any claim for notice pay.
In a recent case the Employment Appeal Tribunal determined that, as a zero-hour worker, the Claimant was not entitled to be paid whilst he was suspended pending an investigation into an allegation of misconduct.
View blog
The Government has launched a consultation today on potential changes to the statutory flexible working regime.
An employment tribunal has awarded an employee almost £185,000 for indirect discrimination following a failure to adequately consider the employee’s flexible working request.
Time is rapidly running out for those who will fall within the mandatory vaccination requirements applying to care homes from 11 November 2021 and who remain unvaccinated from Covid-19.
Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.
Sign up