header-logo header-logo

14 January 2010
Issue: 7400 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

EAT rules two jobs allowed if compatible

Individuals can be employed by different employers at the same time, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled.

In Prison Officers Association v Gough [2009] UKEAT 0405/09_1712, the respondents were employed by the Prison Service and were also officials of the Prison Officers Association, the trade union for prison staff.

Mr Justice Silber considered whether the respondents were employed by the Association in “light of the functions they performed for them”, and whether they could be employees of both. He held that they could, as long as the jobs were compatible with each other.

Silber J ruled that it was proper to apply the test set out in 102 Social Club and Institute Ltd v Bickerton [1977] ICR 911 to the respondents’ work. These covered factors such as whether the payment was fixed in advance, like a salary, or whether it was decided at the end of the year; the extent and weight of the duties performed; and the size of the payment.

Delivering judgment, Silber J said: “There is no different question of principle which precludes a person having two jobs with separate employers at the same time provided they are compatible with each other.

“In the present case, it is not said that there could be anything incompatible with employees of the Prison Service also being employees of the respondent.”

 

Issue: 7400 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll