header-logo header-logo

Employment law brief: 13 October 2017

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

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll