header-logo header-logo

31 October 2013 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7582 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 31 October 2013

Ian Smith ponders on relaxed harassment laws, TUPE transfers, parental leave & the meaning of trade union

On at least a symbolic level (for a government wanting to be seen to listen to employers’ concerns on employment law) the big news last month was legislative, with the repeal of a provision of discrimination law which had caused much adverse reaction from employers’ organisations. Much of the Equality Act 2010 was mere consolidation, but one significant extension of liability on employers was made by s 40(2)–(4), which enacted a novel form of vicarious liability, whereby an employer could become liable for harassment of one of its employees by a third party (in particular, a customer or client) where it had happened twice before (though not necessarily by the same third party) and the employer could not show it had taken reasonable steps to prevent it. At least in theory, this was a significant extension, in that historically you were only vicariously liable for the acts of someone you controlled. Moreover, on a more

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

Seddons GSC—Ben Marks

Seddons GSC—Ben Marks

Partner joins residential real estate team

Winckworth Sherwood—Shazia Bashir

Winckworth Sherwood—Shazia Bashir

Social housing team announces partner appointment

University of Manchester: The LLM driving tech-focused career growth

University of Manchester: The LLM driving tech-focused career growth

Manchester’s online LLM has accelerated career progression for its graduates

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll