header-logo header-logo

09 April 2009 / Cristian Ley
Issue: 7364 / Categories: Features , Tax , Employment
printer mail-detail

Back to the future?

Cristian Ley welcomes the biggest political U-turn since the poll tax

When the government introduced the statutory dispute resolution procedures in October 2004 the aim was to provide a means for problems to be raised and discussed in the workplace and in some cases remove the need to resort to employment tribunals. However, as we all know, even the best laid plans do not always work out as one intends and in 2006 the government asked Michael Gibbons—former chairman of DTI Employment law simplification panel—to review the operation of the procedures and make recommendations for their reform and/or repeal.

Gibbons found that the statutory dispute resolution procedures had significant unintended negative consequences which outweighed any benefits they carried in terms of resolving workplace disputes. This report concluded that the statutory dispute procedures should be repealed, which they were on 6 April 2009 by virtue of the Employment Act 2008.
What replaces the statutory grievance, disciplinary and dismissal procedures?

The revised Acas Code of Practice (the code) will govern grievances, disciplinary proceedings and dismissals

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll