Dependant leave

Case 1: The facts

Ms Harrison was told by her childminder on 8 December that she could not look after her children on 22 December. When she could not find anyone else to look after the children, Harrison informed her employer that she needed to take the day off. On 20 December, Harrison was told that there was no cover and she could not be spared. She took the day off anyway and received a verbal warning. She brought a successful claim that she had been subjected to an unlawful detriment for exercising her right to dependant leave under section 57A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The employer appealed, arguing that her situation did not fall within the ambit of dependant leave because the disruption to her childcare arrangements was not “unexpected”.

The ruling

The EAT rejected the appeal. The fact that Harrison had two weeks’ forewarning did not mean the disruption was not “unexpected”. The length of advance notice may affect whether it is necessary to have the time off, but in this case, the tribunal was entitled to say that it was necessary.