Veitch Penny LLP - Exeter | Crediton, Devon

Case

Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Harrison
Employment Appeal Tribunal – 27 June 2008

Issues

(1) Parental leave
(2) Right to leave to deal with emergencies
(3) Section 57A Employment Rights Act 1996

Facts

Mrs Harrison was employed as a home insurance claims adviser by Royal Bank of Scotland. She was employed to work three days a week, Wednesday to Friday. Mrs Harrison had two children, both under the age of five. Her husband ran his own business so, when Mrs Harrison was at work, the children were looked after by a childminder. On 8 December, Mrs Harrison was told by her childminder that she would not be able to look after the children on 22 December. Mrs Harrison tried to find a replacement carer by asking friends and other carers. Her husband was unable to help because his sole employee would be away.

By 12 December, Mrs Harrison still had not been able to find a substitute to cover her childminder's absence. She told her line manager and asked to have 22 December off. She was not told at that point that she would be unable to take the time off so she thought that the day off would be approved.

She was later told, on 20 December, that there was no cover for her work on 22nd so that she would be unable to take the day off. She was told that if she did take the day off, it would be treated as unauthorised absence. As Mrs Harrison had no alternative, she decided to stay at home to look after her children on 22 December. She was given a verbal warning on 2 February 2007 as a result. Her subsequent appeal against the warning was unsuccessful.

Section 57A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides employees with the right to take a reasonable amount of time off to deal with unexpected emergencies involving dependants. The Act goes on to provide protection for employees who are subjected to detriment as a result of exercising their right to such time off.

Mrs Harrison made a complaint under the Act, arguing that she had been treated unfairly as a consequence of her exercising the right to take leave.

At first instance, the Tribunal had to consider whether she had exercised her right under Section 57A. Was it necessary for Mrs Harrison to take time off because of the unexpected disruption of arrangements for the care of her children? The Tribunal found in Mrs Harrison's favour. She had suffered a detriment contrary to the Act by exercising her right to take time off to deal with the unexpected emergency.

The Royal Bank of Scotland appealed the decision to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

Decision

The EAT confirmed that the key elements to the right to time off to deal with family emergencies is to provide assistance, as in this case, in relation to the unexpected disruption to care for Mrs Harrison's children. The Bank had tried to argue that the right should only be exercised in relation to sudden and unexpected emergencies. The Bank pointed out that Mrs Harrison had had two weeks' notice of the interruption to her childcare.

Comments

The EAT conceded that the amount of time passing between the incident and the need for alternative arrangements to be made was a relevant consideration. However, in this case, whilst there was advance warning of the need for leave of absence, it was still an unexpected event and she was entitled to the time off. In essence, Mrs Harrison really had no alternative but to stay home and look after her children.


Rachel Billen – Associate Solicitor, Commercial Department at Veitch Penny.
Tel: 01392 278381, Fax: 01392 410247, Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

This Employment Law Update does not constitute legal or other professional advice and should not be relied on as such. You should take specific advice regarding your circumstances before taking any action based on the information contained within this Update.