header-logo header-logo

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

Bully boys

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll