header-logo header-logo

11 April 2014 / Ian Smith
Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 11 April 2014

Ian Smith considers the latest employment law developments

The last month has seen two important legislative developments now in the pipe line. Also, two Court of Appeal decisions have clarified points of interpretation on the “ancillary provisions” part of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010). They are welcome for at least two reasons: (i) these are points of law that were causing some uncertainty; and (i) they show that we are at last now having case law reach us under EqA 2010 rather than the seven previous pieces of legislation (on equal pay, sex, race, disability, religion/belief, sexual orientation and age), which are finally about to be removed from Harvey after a mere four transitional years (!). Lastly, mention is made of an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision on internal disciplinary appeals which looks odd at first, is in fact quite logical but may need careful handling as a precedent.

Legislative changes in force from 6 April

1) Early conciliation and financial penalties on employers

The Commencement (No 5) Order (SI 2014/253) to the

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