Employment Law Updates – June 2020
We are pleased to provide you with the Herrington Carmichael employment law update for June 2020.
This is a key note summary of some of the main developments in employment law in the last month.
1. Breach of Settlement Confidentiality
The High Court has held that an employer cannot avoid payments under the terms of a settlement agreement after a breach of a confidentiality by the employee. The confidentiality clause was not a condition of the settlement agreement and was used merely as standard clause.
This was the case of Duchy Farm Kennels Limited v Graham William Steels. The employee had allegedly breached a confidentiality clause in a settlement agreement with his former employer, so the employer stopped paying out the staged payments. The Court found there was no significant commercial risk to the employer arising from a breach of confidentiality and therefore the clause was not of significant benefit. The clause was included as standard wording and was not a condition of the agreement. The employer was therefore not entitled to stop the payments due under the agreement.
Following this decision, employers should be careful to ensure any confidentiality clause contained in settlement agreements with employees is drafted to be a condition of the agreement. Alternatively, separate specific provision could be added for use in the event that confidentiality is breached.
2. TUPE – Beneficial Contract Changes Void
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that contractual variations made that are beneficial to the employee are still void if the sole or principal reason for the change was the transfer.
In the case of Ferguson and others v Astrea Asset Management Ltd, owner-directors of a company varied their own contracts before a TUPE transfer to allow for guaranteed bonuses and termination payments. The Tribunal found the variations were void as they had been made for the reason of the TUPE transfer and were not enforceable against the company’s new owner.
This case serves as a confirmation for employers that any contractual variations, whether detrimental or beneficial, are void and unenforceable if they are made because of a TUPE transfer. However, employees will likely not be prevented from obtaining an additional beneficial term if that term is agreed with the new owner.
3. Unofficial Work and Continuity of Employment
Work conducted by an individual under an ‘unofficial agreement’ before the employment relationship begins does not count towards an individual’s continuity of service, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has held. This is a very fact sensitive case and should be handled with care!
In Mr R O’Sullivan v DSM Demolition Ltd, the employee, Mr O’Sullivan, sought to pursue a claim for unfair dismissal against his former employer. The employer argued that Mr O’Sullivan was not eligible to bring an unfair dismissal claim, as he did not have the required two years continuity of service. Mr O’Sullivan maintained that his start date was 26 October 2015, but the employer said it was the following week. Looking at the individual facts of the case, the Tribunal found that for the first week, although Mr O’Sullivan did work onsite, he was not on the payroll, did not complete a worksheet, was paid cash in hand and the employer’s client was not charged for his work. A statement of employment terms was also drawn up and dated with a start date of 2 November 2015. Combined, this suggested that Mr O’Sullivan did not being to work under a contract of employment until 2 November 2015 and was therefore not eligible to bring a claim for unfair dismissal.
Following this decision, employers are reminded to be careful when considering what will and will not be considered official work for the purposes of continuity of employment prior to being faced with a potential Tribunal claim. We recommend airing on the side of caution and avoiding “informal” working at the start of employment.
4. Garden Leave & Non-Compete Clauses
The High Court has ruled that the absence of a garden leave set-off clause in an employee’s contract did not prevent a non-compete clause from taking effect. Normally, this is a factor that is looked at in the context of enforcement. So, it is useful to see an alternative view from the Courts.
In Square Global Limited v Leonard, Mr Leonard’s employment contract contained a 6-month notice period, along with the right for his employer to place him on garden leave for a period of up to 6-months. There was also a post-termination restriction prohibiting him from working for a competitor of his employer for 6-months following termination of his employment, but no provision stating that there should be a set-off between any period of garden leave and the amount of time for which the restrictive covenant would apply. On the specific facts of this case, the Court concluded that the absence of a set-off clause did not make the post-termination restriction unreasonable. This meant that Mr Leonard remained an employee of Square Global Limited during his notice period until May 2020 and is then restricted from working for a competitor for a further 6 months.
This case highlights the need the need to ensure that any post-terminations that employers wish to enforce are well drafted and go no further than necessary or they could be considered unreasonable and unenforceable. We recommend that all post-termination restrictions are regularly reviewed and, where appropriate, updated to reflect the needs of the business.
For further information, or to discuss the issues raised by this update, please contact Herrington Carmichael’s Employment Department on 0118 977 4045 or employment@herrington-carmichael.com.
This reflects the law at the date of publication and is written as a general guide. It does not contain definitive legal advice, which should be sought as appropriate in relation to a particular matter.
Latest Articles & Legal Insights
Discrimination in the UK Construction Industry
The construction industry is often perceived as being dominated by white, able-bodied, young men, and can be prone to discrimination.
The Vital Role of Employers in Making Reasonable Adjustments
The Equality Act 2010 aims to protect individuals from discrimination. A key provision is the duty of employers to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees.
Faith in Focus: Protected Belief vs Business Reputation
This case explores the delicate balance between ensuring an employee’s freedom of expression, while protecting an employer’s reputation and commercial interests.
International Women’s Day: Advancing Gender Equality in the Workplace
As societies strive to create more inclusive workplaces, the UN’s theme for International Women’s Day 2024 is “invest in women”.
All in a Day’s Work: Immigration Law Changes in 2024
This month’s episode covers references, with a focus on regulatory references in the Financial Services sector.
Sandwich Sparks Legal Battle
After being dismissed for eating a leftover sandwich, a cleaner is taking legal action against a London law firm, Devonshires Solicitors.
Sign up
Enter your email address for legal updates on Private Client & Family Law.
Top read insights in 2019
Contract Law
Material Breach of Contract
What is a ‘material’ breach of contract by a party to a commercial contract? This is a critical issue regularly considered by the courts. What constitutes a material breach and what are the remedies?
Property Law
Purchasing Land – Option Agreements
A developer and a landowner can enter into an Option Agreement. What are the strategies that can be employed by both landowners and developers to assist in such land deals?
Divorce and Family Law
What are the Tax Implications of a Civil Partnership?
Is there a significant tax saving to be made by a couple who are married or in a civil partnership that cohabitating couples simply don’t qualify for?
Land & Property Dispute
Restrictive Covenants – The Price of Modification
Having identified that your land is burdened by a restrictive covenant and for the purposes of this article the covenant in question will be that only one residential building can be erected on the land. What do you do next?
Award winning legal advice
Herrington Carmichael offers legal advice to UK and International businesses as well as individuals and families. Rated as a ‘Leading Firm 2024’ by the legal directory Legal 500 and listed in The Times ‘Best Law Firms 2023 & 2024’. Herrington Carmichael has offices in London, Farnborough, Reading, and Ascot.
London
60 St Martins Lane, Covent Garden, London, WC2N 4JS
Camberley
Building 2 Watchmoor Park, Riverside Way, Camberley, Surrey. GU15 3YL
Wokingham
Opening Soon
info@herrington-carmichael.com
© 2020 Herrington Carmichael LLP. Registered in England and Wales company number OC322293.
Herrington Carmichael LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
Privacy | Terms and Conditions | Cookies | Client Feedback