1. TIGER - the minimum wage website
2. Recent EAT Decisions
1. TIGER - the Minimum Wage website
The DTI has today (Friday) launched 'TIGER' (Tailored Interactive Guidance on Employment Rights) at www.tiger.gov.uk
The site contains interactive and easy to use information on the national minimum wage, including a detailed yet accessible analysis of people to whom the minimum wage applies, and a 'ready-reckoner' for calculating whether employees are receiving the minimum wage.
The site asks users to state whether they are employers or employees, and guides them down a series of easily understood questions to the information they seek.
It is anticipated that the website will be expanded over time to deal with all aspects of employment rights.
2. New EAT Decisions
Moores v Bude-Stratton Town Council [Lindsay P., 27th March 2000]
A town councillor was extremely rude to a council employee, entitling him to resign and claim constructive dismissal. The issue was whether the Council was vicariously liable for the repudiatory conduct of the individual councillor. The employment tribunal, and the minority member of the EAT, held that councillors were not analagous to employees and a Council was not analagous to an employer - hence no vicarious liability and the claim must fail. The majority of the EAT (including Lindsay P.) held that vicarious liability existed, that the repudiatory conduct of a single counciller was capable of breaching trust and confidence, and the employee was entitled to terminate his contract of employment with the Council.
Martyres v Connex South-East [HHJ Wilson, 24th May 2000]
A single employee did not consent to a change to electronic payment of wages, which his trade union had accepted by conduct. He brought a claim for unlawful deduction from wages. The EAT held (unsurprisingly!) that there had been no deduction, since electronic payment is a proper substitute for putting money in a pay packet. More importantly, the EAT stated that where a collective agreement exists, an individual employee abdicates his right to object and loses any veto he may have to changes in his terms of employment if there were no such collective agreement.