Chemist + Druggist is part of Pharma Intelligence UK Limited

This is operated by Pharma Intelligence UK Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 13787459 whose registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. The Pharma Intelligence group is owned by Caerus Topco S.à r.l. and all copyright resides with the group.


This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. Please do not redistribute without permission.

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction

PDA determined to 'take on' Boots at second premium pay tribunal

People The PDA is not afraid of "ruffling a few feathers", general secretary John Murphy (pictured) has claimed, ahead of the second employment tribunal next year over cuts to premium pay at Boots.

The Pharmacists' Defence Association (PDA) has reiterated its determination to "take on" Boots as a further 140 employees take the health and beauty giant to an employment tribunal next year.

The PDA was not concerned about "ruffling a few feathers" as it fights on behalf of Boots employees over reductions in their premium pay rates, it told C+D last week.

"We believe that our members have been treated unfairly and we are determined to see this through on their behalf," said PDA general secretary John Murphy.

"We believe that our members have been treated unfairly and we are determined to see this through on their behalf" John Murphy, PDA

More on the premium pay dispute

Boots employees face ‘some risk' in refusing       premium pay cuts

Boots denies pressuring employees into accepting       lower pay

Boots employees win battle over Sunday rate cuts

An employment tribunal ruled in April that Boots had acted unlawfully by cutting premium Sunday rates, as they were part of Boots employees' contractual payments and were not discretionary.

Since then, a further 140 employees have challenged the rates cut and will be facing Boots at a hearing in the new year, the PDA revealed last month.

The PDA expects Boots to argue that most of the claimants should be treated differently to those who were successful in April 2012 on the basis that they did not raise a grievance when the pay cuts were introduced originally.

But the PDA will argue that all claimants worked under sufferance, regardless of whether they originally raised a grievance.

Law firm Charles Russell said the employment tribunal would have to determine whether the claimants had been "working under protest" once the pay cuts had been implemented.

Charles Russell associate Ben Smith queried whether the employees had made it clear to Boots that they did not accept the change in terms, notwithstanding their decision to continue to work. "This does not have to be [by] way of a formal complaint or grievance. If the employees did not make this clear, there is a risk that the employees have impliedly agreed to the change by continuing to work under the terms," he told C+D.

A Boots spokesperson said the multiple "cannot comment on legal proceedings".


Do you think the Boots employees will win the tribunal?

Comment below or email us at [email protected] You can also find C+D on Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook

Topics

         
Pharmacist Manager
Barnsley
£30 per hour

Apply Now
Latest News & Analysis
See All
UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

CD015789

Ask The Analyst

Please Note: You can also Click below Link for Ask the Analyst
Ask The Analyst

Thank you for submitting your question. We will respond to you within 2 business days. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel