header-logo header-logo

Bully boys

18 October 2007 / Simon Cheetham KC , Harriet Bowtell , Stephen Levinson
Issue: 7293 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

The law on harassment at work should be made more coherent say Stephen Levinson, Harriet Bowtell and Simon Cheetham

The law relating to harassment at work—bullying by another name—is in a shambles. The present situation is that any employee protected by discrimination legislation is legally protected from harassment and has a remedy in the employment tribunal. The question arises why only these employees should deserve protection. 

 In its recent consultation paper, A Framework for Fairness: Proposals for a Single Equality Bill for Great Britain, the government gave voice to a pious hope that the law relating to harassment should be as coherent as possible. However, it gave no real commitment to resolve matters.

The consultation paper attempted to draw a distinction in relation to employees between the discrimination legislation and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PHA 1997) on the basis that the latter is designed to combat stalkers. This is now an entirely unreal distinction, as the House of Lords made abundantly clear in Majrowski v Guy’s and St

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll