header-logo header-logo

16 July 2021 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7941 / Categories: Features , Employment , Discrimination
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 16 July 2021

52823
Bargaining rights denied: Ian Smith reports on Deliveroo drivers, detriments & debatable opinions
  • Reconsideration of the defence of illegality in employment cases.
  • The application of the European Convention on Human Rights: arts 11 and 17.

The last month has been a busy one in both the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) and the Court of Appeal on employment issues. The first case considered concerns a purely common law point on how the general doctrine of illegality is to be applied to employment cases. However, the other three cases concern the application of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), but with interestingly mixed results. In the second case, the Court of Appeal declined to apply Art 11 to help the Deliveroo riders and their union in claiming bargaining rights. On the contrary, in the third case the EAT relied at least in part on the little-used art 17, and in the fourth case the EAT held that Art 11 did apply in order to extend protection from union-related detriment

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

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