• This month

  • …at a glance

• Legal updates

  • Calculating retirement age
  • Defining a grievance
  • Time off for dependents

• Case archive

  • July 09
  • June 09
  • May 09
  • April 09
  • March 09
  • January 09
  • November 08
  • July 08
  • June 08
  • April 08
  • March 08
  • February 08

Enquiries

T: +44 (0) 1451 812 225

info@west-writing.com

Time off for dependents

Gap Personnel Franchises vs Robinson

UKEAT/0049/08

Key facts

Harrison was given two week’s notice that her childminder would be unavailable. She tried and failed to make alternative arrangements and requested the day off, giving her employer nine day’s notice of her plans. She was refused leave, took the day anyway and was disciplined on her return to work.

Decision

The Tribunal ruled in favour of Mrs. Harrison, arguing that the requirement for her to have time off to care for a dependent was that the disruption to her normal arrangements was ‘unexpected’ and not ‘sudden’ and there was no requirement that the situation was ‘urgent’.

Our view

Unexpected and sudden are not the same thing but The Royal Bank are not alone in assuming that the provision was intended for emergencies. Now that we know how it will be interpreted in the future, employers will have to treat requests for time off for dependents with even more care.