header-logo header-logo

19 January 2024 / Ian Smith
Issue: 8055 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 19 January 2024

153986
The end of 2023 brought a blizzard of new legislation & some thorny EAT decisions. Ian Smith sweeps through them with gusto
  • The ACAS Code of Practice uplift.
  • The relevance of delay in constructive dismissal.
  • Employers’ policy in sickness dismissal.

December saw a flurry of employment-related legislation. This was partly to preserve certain EU-derived provisions that may have lapsed on the ending of EU law interpretation at the end of 2023, partly to flesh out the new provisions on minimum service levels during strikes (which are only just starting to prove controversial politically) and partly to transform requesting flexible working into a day-one right (see Harvey, Bulletin 546). In addition, we have seen three Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decisions addressing three common but not always easy areas of law, namely: the statutory uplift of compensation for not following the ACAS Code of Practice; affirmation of contract in constructive dismissal cases; and the relevance of an employer’s policy in a sickness dismissal case. In each, the judgment adds some important

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

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