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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll