Advisor on all aspects of HR and employment law.
I am an associate in the pensions and employment team. I advise on both contentious and non-contentious HR and employment law matters in a range of sectors including housing, local government, charity, as well as support other commercial organisations. My advice is focused on helping clients achieve their goals.
I have experience of advising on all aspects of employment law including; restructure and redundancies, TUPE, terms and conditions of employment, HR policies and procedures and termination of employment. I also assist clients in defending employment tribunal proceedings, in particular, unfair dismissal and discrimination claims.
What key learning points can be taken from the BBC’s revelations? There is NO requirement to publish the names of your employees, or even the names of your highest earners.
You can read the full judgment here.
Background Most employers will be familiar with the holiday pay headlines over recent years and the scrutiny under which employers’ calculations for holiday pay have been.
The provisions ought to make it harder for unions to take industrial action. On the back of recent and high-profile disruption to services through strike action, this is likely to be welcome news to employers.
The requirements largely mirror those being imposed on the private sector, reported in our briefing in October 2016: Gender Pay Reporting is coming – are you ready?.
Subject to parliamentary approval (which we believe is likely), the Regulations will come into force on 6 April 2017.
In the case of Barbulescu v Romania, the employer had a clear policy in which all personal use of the employer’s IT systems was forbidden. Here, the employee had used his personal email account during work time and via the employer’s systems.
She claimed for damages against her employer citing a breach of the employer’s statutory duty (with reference to the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999) and alleged that Cordia had failed to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment, or to provide adequate footwear to mitigate the risk of a fall.
Two recent Supreme Court cases (Cox v Ministry of Justice and Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarket plc) confirm that a relationship other than one of employment is, in principle, capable of giving rise to vicarious liability where an individual is integrated into the defendant’s operation and the defendant has created the risk of wrongdoing by assigning responsibility to the individual.
The EAT decided that a warehouse worker, who had difficulty lifting up to 25kg, was disabled for the purposes of the Act. Mr Banaszczyk worked in a distribution centre and was employed to lift and move cases by hand for loading onto pallet trucks.
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.