0370 1500 100
Request a call back
Send us an email
Request a call back
Send us an email
Glenn is a Partner and is the Head of the Employment teams based in Leeds, Sheffield and Manchester at Irwin Mitchell.
His client experience includes providing support to a number of large and small businesses in a variety of different fields and he is a key adviser and the relationship partner to some of the Employment and Pension Group’s key national clients. These include the likes of Capita Group’s HR Function, the Eddisons Group and a number of well-known PLC clients.
An experienced Employment Tribunal advocate, Glenn also advises on a wide range of employment law matters including the enforcement and defence of restrictive covenants, advising on senior level appointments and exits, outsourcing, acquisitions and disposals including Transfer of Undertakings, Protection of Employment (TUPE) issues, large scale reorganisations and redundancy, discrimination and equality issues.
He is the lead partner for our Restrictive Covenant product – IM Protect – and one of the leaders in the growth of our IMhrplus product. Glenn is also responsible for ensuring that any work that is “north shored” to achieve costs savings for our clients is handled efficiently and harmoniously.
Glenn also regularly presents at seminars and training events organised by the firm, has been the judge at a number of Mock Tribunal events arranged for clients and has presented seminars for third parties and clients/contacts. He is also a member of the Employment Lawyers Association.
He is "a straight-talking no-nonsense lawyer who gets straight to the point with sound and unequivocal advice." - Chambers & Partners, 2017
The Employment teams led by Glenn Hayes attract praise for their "good value for money" - Legal 500 2016
"a good communicator who gives clear, common-sense advice." - Chambers & Partners, 2015
"Glenn Hayes has particular expertise in the enforcement of restrictive covenants, and is assisted by two highly experienced associates." - Chambers & Partners, 2014
Glenn is described as being "notable for his Transfer of Undertakings, Protection of Employment (TUPE) expertise." - Legal 500, 2013
“Even if the Government adopts this proposal, the right to request guaranteed hours is not the same as the right to work a fixed number of hours per week. I assume that the employer facing such a request will be able to turn it down, without risk, if it has a good business reason for doing so. A good business reason could be potentially very wide ranging and might include factors such as the burden of additional costs, inability to reorganise work around existing staff to accommodate the request or simply insufficiency of work.
“In addition, it is not clear whether there will be restrictions on how many hours the employee can request. In theory, a zero hours worker could request anything from being guaranteed a couple of hours a week to 48 hours a week and everything in between.”
“Employers will welcome this decision because it provides them with powerful ammunition to defeat holiday pay claims which go further back than a worker’s current holiday year. Put simply, a worker will only be able to link underpayments of holiday if there are no gaps of three months or more between underpayments and the payments themselves are of the same ‘type’. The first 20 days of holiday are treated differently from the remaining 8 statutory days.
“Whilst this is effectively the end of the road for Mr Fulton and Mr Baxter, it does not mean that the argument about this issue will not resurface in another case. Back in 2014, the EAT in its original decision on Wood and others v Hertel and Fulton and Bear Scotland Limited, recognised that its interpretation in respect of limiting a series of deductions was a new one and should be considered by a higher court. Fulton and Baxter were parties to that litigation and did not appeal and the EAT made it clear that they had missed their chance and could not try and re-open the issue through separate litigation.”
“This could be another important development for how businesses operate in the gig economy. If the IWGB union is successful, then it could open the floodgates for thousands of people who want to argue their case for being recognised as a worker and therefore being entitled to holiday pay and the other benefits such as the National Minimum Wage.
“We have seen with other recent cases, including the one with Uber, that Tribunals are prepared to look behind the documents provided by companies in order to assess whether individuals are in fact workers rather than being self-employed. Deliveroo recently agreed to remove the clause that blocked riders from disputing their status, so the outcome from the case in May could very easily spark another landmark for the gig economy and something which again will be closely monitored by other businesses.”
“This really is the end of the line for British Gas and they will have to compensate Mr Lock (and approximately 1000 other employees waiting in the wings who have suffered similar losses). The principles involved have already been determined by the European Court of Justice and all that remains is for the Employment Tribunal to determine what compensation should be paid by British Gas to ensure that workers like Mr Lock are not disadvantaged by taking a holiday. This is likely to be done by averaging his pay over a given reference period which it will have to determine.
“This case is likely to attract a considerable amount of publicity and we are likely to see more workers attempt to challenge the amount they are paid when they take a holiday. However, this decision does not mean that everyone who receives commission will be entitled to have this included in their holiday pay. The Court of Appeal made it very clear that its decision in Lock only applied to ‘results based’ commission schemes. It is therefore not a panacea for all commission schemes to be included.
“Mr Lock’s commission scheme was straightforward and he was paid according to the outcome of his own work and it was very clear that he suffered a loss when he took a holiday. Ascertaining loss will not be as straightforward in other cases where, for example, commission is paid annually, or where the scheme involves discretionary assessments based on a worker’s broader contribution or where this is in part based on individual performance as well as team performance. The Court of Appeal made it very clear that its decision in this case will not bind future Tribunals who are examining different types of scheme.”
Enter your details below and we'll call you back, at a time of your choice.