Call us on
0370 1500 100
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
“This decision is extremely important and it is the first occasion the EAT has heard cases relating to purely voluntary overtime. Many businesses have adopted a ‘wait and see’ approach to voluntary overtime but this option is no longer possible and overtime that is worked regularly, must now be included in holiday pay.
“Not all voluntary overtime will have to be included but the EAT made it clear that overtime that ‘extends for a sufficient period of time on a regular or recurring basis’ will.
“There is no statutory definition of what amounts to ‘normal pay’ and Tribunals will continue to hear arguments about whether overtime, of whatever nature, has become part of an employee’s normal pay.”
“This decision makes it clear that what is or is not in the public interest is not just about the numbers of people affected. Other factors must also be in play. The identity of the whistleblower is also important and the court suggested that the more prominent the whistleblower, the more likely the disclosure will be in the public interest.
“Similarly, the nature of the wrong doing is also relevant; something that is done deliberately is more likely to be in the public interest than if it was inadvertent even if it affects the same number of people.
“That said, the numbers of other people affected remains important because the more people affected by a contractual breach, the more likely it is that there will be other features of the situation which will engage the public interest.”
“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.”
Request a call back
Enter your details below and we'll call you back, at a time of your choice.