header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
12 May 2023 / Ian Smith
Issue: 8024 / Categories: Features , Employment , Disciplinary&grievance procedures , Health & safety , Covid-19
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 12 May 2023

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
121671
Wearing too many hats? In this month’s brief, Ian Smith addresses the confirmation of the rule against multiple employers, lingering COVID fears at work, & civil proceedings orders
  • Affirmation of the general rule against multiple employers.
  • Health and safety protection and COVID fears.
  • Civil proceedings orders in employment tribunals.
  • Recusal of an Employment Appeal Tribunal side member.

The cases covered in this month’s epistle to the terminally confused do not raise fundamental issues, but rather add interesting points to established areas—how the rule against multiple employers applies to an employee seconded to act as a full-time union officer; what are the limits of the statutory health and safety protections in a case of fears of COVID; what are the effects of a civil procedure order if the claimant appears to act in contravention of it; and when should a side member be recused from sitting, not because of their personal views but because of the organisation to which they belong?

Multiple employers

The decision

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll