You know how you wait for ages for a bus to come (well, we do in Europe) and then three come along at once? Well it’s a little like that in the data privacy arena right now, as far as transfer of international personal data is concerned, anyhow. For years, there has been a reasonably steady and fairly consistent position from the various bodies responsible for this complicated and often confusing area of law, but in the last few weeks we have been hit with a significant change overnight and we are all left wondering where to get off.
Mandy Perry, of counsel in the London office, is a member of the Employment Group. Mandy’s practice includes acting in high value litigation disputes in the High Court and Employment Tribunal where she has gained particular experience in advising on whistleblowing, restrictive covenant issues and cross-border jurisdiction issues.
Mandy specialises in all aspects of contentious and non-contentious employment law and advises clients across diverse sectors with particular emphasis on corporate, real estate and technology clients.
Mandy advises on the strategy and handling of redundancies, wrongful and unfair dismissals, TUPE, discrimination disputes, financial services remuneration practices, data protection and a full spectrum of employment-related legal issues.
Legal 500 describe Mandy as “very experienced and knowledgeable.” She is an accomplished speaker and regularly provides client training on legal updates and diversity matters and presents on all aspects of the employment relationship.
In the recent case of Ramphal v. Department of Transport (DoT) the tricky question of where HR should draw the line in a disciplinary matter between guiding the decision-maker on the right decision, and making that decision for them, was considered. The results weren’t great for the HR manager involved in this case…
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?
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