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.
"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.
“Saturday must have been a very surreal day for Andre Gray; a young player who went from the highs of scoring his first ever goal in the Premier League to the lows of having to issue a statement asking “for forgiveness”.
“It could be said that he had two career defining incidents in just one day. The financial reward for players in England’s top division is greater than ever before and even before his goal the young, in-form English striker was being linked with a move to Arsenal.
“With the transfer window still open and Sam Allardyce about to name his first ever England squad, this was the perfect time for Gray to perform on the pitch and leave his representatives to ask whether he has a contract that reflects his new found status in the professional game.
“However, such was the offensive nature of the tweets from his account that Burnley could now have potential grounds to terminate, rather than improve, his contract.
“We know football operates in a vacuum away from the rest of the world but if senior figures at Burnley felt his comments would have the potential for reputational damage to the club then there are a range of options open to them.
“It’s extremely unlikely that Burnley would want to lose such a valuable asset whose goals will help their attempt to stay in the Premier League and therefore risk millions of pounds in prize money and sponsorship.
“As the incident didn’t happen whilst Gray was at Burnley, it is likely that they will warn him internally about future conduct and possibly ask him to attend equality training.
“Ultimately it is an embarrassing incident for Andre Gray and could easily impact on any local and national sponsorship deals he has in place."
“These manifesto pledges are clearly aimed at enhancing the appeal of Owen Smith to the unions and their members, particularly as many unions have already indicated that they will support Jeremy Corbyn in the leadership election.
“Under these proposals the power will shift back towards the unions; collective bargaining will become the norm in the public sector and wages councils will be introduced in the hospitality, retail and social care sectors. He has pledged to make it easier to call strike action and to repeal legislation introduced earlier this year, which is not yet in force. Jeremy Corbyn has made similar pledges.
“He also seeks to appeal to workers and promises a “revolution of worker’s rights” the most significant of which is what is known as “day one” rights providing rights for individuals from day one of their employment rather than having to build up a minimum period of service. Although not made explicit, this is likely to mean the right not to be unfairly dismissed and the right to receive a redundancy payment (although it is difficult to see how redundancy payments can be made until an individual has at least required 1 year’s service as the statutory formula for calculating this is based on the number of complete years served).
“Businesses are likely to be extremely resistant to day one unfair dismissal rights, not least because currently they enjoy the flexibility of being able to quickly dismiss staff that do not perform well. Workers are already protected from decisions made against them on discriminatory grounds – even before they are offered a job.
“It will be interesting to see if these pledges become firm commitments in the event that Smith wins the Labour leadership election in September.”
“It looks as though Eddie Stobart Ltd had calculated holiday by reference to their workers’ basic pay which is in line with UK legislation, but not EU case law. It is likely that the amount these workers received varied depending on the amount of work they do, or when they do it and their holiday pay would have been calculated on the basis of their previous pay, averaged over the previous 12 weeks.
“However, they have now agreed that the holiday pay should reflect their workers’ normal pay including any overtime, enhancements and allowances in line with recent UK and ECJ decisions. The basic position is that payments that are intrinsically linked to the work or tasks the worker is required to do, should be included in the calculation of holiday pay. In other words, holiday pay should reflect a worker’s ‘normal’ pay.
“What is interesting is that Eddie Stobart Ltd has agreed to calculate all holiday payments in this way. The law only requires employers to calculate 20 days holiday per year in this way and employers are free to calculate any other holiday payments at basic pay. All employees are entitled to a minimum of 28 days holiday per year (pro-rated for part time staff) and therefore 28% of their holiday pay can be paid at a reduced rate.
“Holiday pay is an issue where EU law can be said to interfere with UK legislation. However if the UK does exit the EU, this is one area where the UK government might intervene. If it does, businesses that have already made changes to their holiday payments will not be able to reduce the terms and conditions of their existing members of staff , which have been expressly agreed or implied, without agreement. Forcing through detrimental changes is likely to cause real resentment and may drive employees into the arms of trade unions and ultimately into Tribunals.”
“Employees are entitled to hold different opinions to their employers and others with whom they work with, but this does not mean that they have an absolute right to say what they like.
“Most employers have workplace policies and rules which spell out the behavioural standards staff must meet and these will usually require staff to treat each other with dignity and respect. Ridiculing them for their ‘mistaken’ beliefs, therefore, will cause problems and may amount to bullying and in extreme circumstances, employment tribunal claims
“Under UK law, an individual can complain of bullying or harassment if comments are ‘unwanted’ and create a hostile or intimidating working environment. It is not a defence to say that the comments were ‘banter’ or that the victim is too sensitive or that the comments were not directed at them.
“Employers have a duty to dampen down any conflict in their workplace about the implications of Brexit and should remind staff to respect each other’s opinions and not allow their political opinions to affect their work or the relationships they have with their colleagues.
“A belief in the EU, or alternatively the sovereignty of the UK, might be capable of being a ‘philosophical belief’ protected under UK discrimination law. Whilst a ‘belief’ has to be more than an opinion, employees who believe that they have been bullied for holding a contrary view on Brexit to the majority of their colleagues, may try and bring claims based on their beliefs if no action is taken to protect them. It may come as a surprise to some businesses but previous cases have found that a belief in climate change, anti-fox hunting and left wing democratic socialist beliefs have all been held to be capable of protection.
“Furthermore, if employers fail to protect their employees, claims could be potentially brought for constructive dismissal, if such bullying (or the failure to stop it) leads to a fundamental breach of contract.”