header-logo header-logo

15 November 2024 / Ian Smith
Issue: 8094 / Categories: Features , Employment , Human rights , Discrimination , Harassment
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 15 November 2024

196802
Ian Smith combs through four cases addressing important issues of interpretation…including the reach of sexual harassment law
  • Whistleblowing detriment: a question of timing
  • Redundancy consultation: how collective and individual fit together.
  • Maternity leave & redundancy protection—the meaning of suitable alternative vacancy.
  • Harassment related to the prohibited ground.

The four cases considered here all address important issues of interpretation, relating to when a protected disclosure can be made, how collective and individual consultations fit together in unfair redundancy cases (especially in non-union establishments), the meaning of ‘suitable available vacancy’ in the laws protecting those on maternity leave, and the reach of sexual harassment law. The last is of particular note on its facts because it concerned one man insulting another in a way that related to the protected characteristic of sex. It shows that, as so often, the matter is resolved by logical statutory interpretation, however counter-intuitive the result may seem at first.

Whistleblowing detriment

Most of this appeal in MacLennan v The British Psychological Society [2024]

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