header-logo header-logo

01 January 2009 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7350+7351 / Categories: Features , Discrimination
printer mail-detail

Benefits & ageism

Ian Smith contemplates some murky borderlines

The principal news in recent employment law has been the Employment Act 2008 receiving Royal Assent. The all-important provisions repealing the statutory disciplinary and grievance procedures are to be brought into force by order, but the word on the street is that April 2009 is still the target date. With this in view, the other piece of news at this level is that the new ACAS Code of Practice No 1 (on discipline and grievance) has been published and is on the ACAS website (www.acas.org.uk)This is the finalised version which has now been put before Parliament for approval, again with April in mind.

However, there is one other piece of news of some interest, in relation to a particular case. There was reported in this briefi ng on 15 August (158 NLJ 7334, p 1162) the decision of the Court of Appeal in Allen v GMB [2008] EWCA 810, [2008] All ER (D) 207 (Jul) holding the union liable for indirect sex discrimination in not pursuing

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll