Prison Service v Bewly [2004] ICR 422
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-07 17:00:02 UTC
Plaintiff’s employers and union reached a collective agreement that purported to exclude Reg 10(1), i.e. no need to breaks of 11 hours in each 24 hour period.
Plaintiff then sued its employer for breach of reg 10, saying that for a collective agreement to exclude reg 10 under a collective agreement, it must do so explicitly.
EAT disagreed, saying that under Reg 23 a collective agreement can exclude or modify Reg 10, but there is no need for this to be explicit.
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
Barber v RJB Mining UK Ltd
Plaintiffs worked for Defendant after working time regulations came in, and refused to sign an opt out of 48 hour average week under regulation 4(1) WTR. Court held that the requirements of Reg 4(1)...
Simmons v Hoover
Plaintiff went on a strike and Defendant (employer) took that to be a repudiatory breach of contract. The EAT accepted that to go on strike was to deliberately breach one’s contract, so that the empl...
Johnson v Nottinghamshire
Plaintiffs were employed as clerks and Defendant wanted to shift their hours from 9.30am - 5.30pm (i.e. 8 hours a day) to shifts varying every other week that would amount to 7 hours a day work. Plai...
Stewart v Moray Council
Defendant received a request to negotiate an agreement from between 10% and 40% of its employees. The council took the view that various collective agreements in place together amounted to a pre-exis...
EOC v SoS for Employment
Some legislation limited redundancy and other rights to those working under 8 hours a week. Commission argued that this constituted indirect discrimination against women, who formed the vast majority...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.