There are two cases that I would like to draw to your attention this month.
- Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Haywood 2018
- Thornjorn Selstad Thue v The Norwegian Government E-19/16
Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Haywood 2018
The first of these, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Haywood 2018, is a Supreme Court decision which considered the issue of when a written notice of dismissal took effect.
Ms Haywood was employed as an associate director. Following a merger with another NHS body, her role was placed at risk of redundancy. She informed her employer that she would be on annual leave from 19 April 2011 until 3 May 2011. During this time her position became redundant and her employer sent her a letter by recorded delivery on 20 April 2011 giving her 12 weeks’ contractual notice terminating her employment on 15 July 2011. However, given Ms Haywood was out of the country during this time on holiday then the letter could not be delivered to her. It was instead collected by a family member who gave it to her upon her return on 27 April 2011.
The issue that had to be considered was when the 12 weeks’ notice had been served. This was important because if notice expired after her 50th birthday, which meant notice of termination had to be given after 26 April 2011, then she was entitled to receive a higher pension.
The Court of Appeal concluded that notice was effective from the date it was received by the employee (in the absence of a contractual term stating when it is effective). In this case, it was the 27 April 2011 as this was the date she took delivery of the letter.
Thornjorn Selstad Thue v The Norwegian Government E-19/16
The second case of interest this month took place in Norway. Thornjorn Selstad Thue v The Norwegian Government E-19/16 considers the issue of working time and whether travel time to a temporary place of work can be counted as such.
In this case, Mr Selstad Thue was employed by the Norwegian Government as a chief inspector. He was usually based at a particular police station in Norway but for a period of time he was assigned to temporary assignments at a temporary work location. He alleged that the time he spent during these assignments travelling between his home and the temporary work location amounted to working time under the Working Time Directive.
The Court of Justice of the European Free Trade Association considered this argument and held that time spent travelling outside normal working hours to and from a location other than a worker’s fixed or habitual workplace to carry out his duties, as required by the employer, constituted working time.
This is a particularly interesting decision and appears to build upon the decision in the Tyco case. For those of you who recall, the Tyco case involved workers who did not have a fixed place of work. The European Court of Justice held that the time spent travelling between home and their first assignment amounted to working time. This case builds on this decision and can be differentiated as the employee has a usual place of work but is required to travel to a temporary work location. However, the time spent travelling does amount to working time.
It is important to note that this case is not binding on UK Courts. However, it does give an indication of the direction that Courts are taking when considering the interpretation of the Working Time Directive and, if the European Court of Justice were to consider this particular issue, this decision would be persuasive. I have highlighted this case simply as the issue of working time has been quite topical over recent years and it will be interesting to see how this develops in the future. Watch this space!
