header-logo header-logo

13 October 2017 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7765 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 13 October 2017

This month Ian Smith explains why, whatever diplomatic wrangles lie ahead, our European obligations will continue

  • Monitoring employee communications.
  • ​Forcing contractual change by proposing change and letting employees choose.
  • Don’t expect to be paid for ‘working time’.

At a time of party conferences when questions arise (if allowed to) as to the speed or otherwise of our departure from the EU, the three cases chosen for this month’s column all show the continuing significance legally of our European obligations, which is likely to continue for some time to come. The first concerns the topical issue of the monitoring of employee electronic communications, with the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in effect reviewing its previous rather indulgent view on the matter. The second concerns linked cases from Poland in which the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) considered the employer tactic of forcing contractual changes by ‘proposing’ changes and leaving it up to the employees to decide whether to accept those changes or not. Both of

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll