Imagine that you have a senior employee who you have decided (for whatever reason) that you do not want anymore but you do not want to pay out his 12-month notice period. As an ingenious attempt to get around that, you instruct forensic investigators to carry out a ‘fishing expedition’ to try and find some dirt on him that will justify you summarily dismissing him, rather than paying out what he is owed under his contract. Imagine that your luck is in and you do indeed find some dirt but that the dirt you find is five year old dirt. Would you think that the High Court is going to accept this approach and agree that you don’t have to pay the notice period?
Mandy Perry, of counsel in the London office, is a valued member of the Employment Group and the London Employment Team with more than 15 years experience. Mandy has worked closely with Nicola Whiteley for more than 15 years. In 2013, Legal 500 recommended Mandy and awarded "the exceptional department" a Tier 8 ranking. The London Employment team was also listed in the 2013 edition of The International Who's Who of Management Labour and Employment Lawyers.
Mandy specialises in all aspects of employment law, both contentious and non-contentious, including "surgery-style" counselling, tribunal, employment appeal tribunal and High Court cases and the employment aspects of corporate and real estate transactions, including:
- Drafting and advising on employment, secondment, settlement and consultancy documentation, policies and procedures, and staff handbooks.
- Drafting, advising on, and enforcing confidentiality obligations and other restrictive covenants, including cross-border jurisdiction issues.
- Advising on the prevention of and defending wrongful and unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims, bonus, bonus disputes and share options.
- Advising on the application and implications of TUPE (The Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 in relation to the acquisition or disposal of a business, part of a business, transfer of a lease, contract tenders and outsourcing exercises, including harmonisation of terms and conditions, relocation, redundancies and unfair dismissal claims arising from the TUPE transfer.
- Advising on and executing executive and general recruitment, remuneration and termination.
- Advising on whistle-blowing procedures and defending claims.
- Advising on the prevention of and defending claims under discrimination and equal pay legislation and advising on maternity and other parental and family friendly rights.
- Advising on European and National works councils and other consultation issues.
- Advising on, coordinating and defending claims arising from local and transnational restructuring exercises and redundancies (collective and individual), plant closures and relocations.
- Advising on data privacy and protection requirements and issues.
- Advising on trade secrets and restrictive covenant protection and team moves.
- Advising on disciplinary and grievance procedures and performance or absence management.
- Obtaining fast injunctive relief in relation to non-compete and confidentiality provisions.
- Advising on and preparing complex Employment Tribunal and High Court claims including whistle-blowing, race, sex, age, disability and sexual orientation discrimination, unfair and constructive dismissal, breach of contract, bonus and breach of fiduciary duty claims.
Mandy regularly publishes newsletters, presents seminars and provides tailored training sessions on a range of employment-related topics, a few of which include TUPE, contracts, unfair dismissal, working time, enforcement of cross-border restrictive covenants and trade secrets, financial services remuneration practices, employment status, team moves, mock tribunals, redundancy practice and procedure, work councils and other consultation issues, discrimination and data protection.
In the recent case of Game Retail Limited v Laws, the UK Employment Appeal Tribunal (or “EAT“) considered the fairness of an employee’s dismissal for offensive tweets. This is the first time this issue has been considered at EAT level. The EAT found that the dismissal was fair, even though the Twitter account was not linked to Mr Laws’ employment, and his posts were made in his own time.
Richard Branson is now offering his staff unlimited holidays. Below we set out the key UK employment law considerations to bear in mind if you want to follow suit.
We’ve received a number of requests in the past 12 months to include an unlimited holiday clause in standard employment contracts. It’s a Silicon Valley trend edging its way into the UK employment landscape via tech companies. At first glance it appears to be an incredibly attractive benefit and the oft quoted reason for unlimited holidays is to offer a unique perk to lure in and retain the best talent.
According to research cited by the British Association of Dermatologists, one in five Britons now has a tattoo. Amongst US 30 somethings, the estimate rises to about two in five, with facial piercings being almost as common in both countries. As a result, this is becoming an issue that more and more employers have to grapple with.
Employers may wish to promote a certain image through their employees which they believe reflects the ethos of their organization and tattoos and piercings may well not fit with that image. So how should this be handled and are there any pitfalls of imposing rules of this nature on employees?
In July last year, fees were introduced for employees to bring claims and the Ministry of Justice has just published Tribunal statistics for October to December 2013 (the first full quarter since the introduction of the fees) which show that in that time, employment tribunals received 79% fewer claims than the same quarter in 2012 and 75% fewer than in the previous quarter. Read More
July 29, 2013 was a big day for employment law in the UK.
Firstly compromise agreements were renamed ‘settlement agreements’. This is largely a rebranding exercise but one that is welcome as we now have a title which more accurately describes what the agreement is designed to achieve.
On this same date, changes around ‘pre-termination discussions’ came into effect. These changes are contained in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act and talk about ‘confidentiality of negotiations before termination of employment’. The theory behind this new law is that employers should be able to discuss with their employees the option of the employee leaving with a settlement agreement without the risk that that discussion itself will be used against them in a future claim. Read More
TODAY is a big day for employment law. Even though many of you will be thinking about your holidays, or may have even jetted off to sunny shores, take care to remember that certain changes are taking place which will affect your standard document and how you handle any exiting employees. Read more.
A recent case in the UK Employment Appeals Tribunal Woodhouse v. West North West Homes Leeds Limited UK EAT/0007(12) has looked at whether it is possible to fairly dismiss an employee who has raised repeated grievances, on the basis that the relationship with the employer has irretrievably broken down. Read More
After twice rejecting the Government’s proposals, the House of Lords has just finally voted to accept the much argued Clause 27 of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill, thereby paving the way for new legislation that will create a third type of UK employment status—Employee Shareholder. Read More
The British man who was filmed wrestling a shark, which threatened nearby children in the sea, whilst he was on holiday in Australia – the footage of which went global – has been sacked by his employer this week. It has been revealed that Mr. Marshallea and his wife (who has also been sacked) were on sick leave from the charity that employed them at the time of Mr. Marshallea’s heroic efforts and his employer took the view that this was a breach of trust too far.
Mr. Marshallea’s version of events is that he was off work with stress (as was his wife) and his GP had advised them that a holiday would do them good. His employer, in the dismissal letter, allegedly stated that, ‘Whilst unfit to work, you were well enough to travel to Australia and, according to recent news footage of yourself in Queensland, you allegedly grabbed a shark by the tail and narrowly missed being bitten by quickly jumping out of the way; the photographs and footage appearing in newspapers and television broadcasts.” Read More