header-logo header-logo

15 November 2007
Issue: 7297 / Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment lawyers predict workplace tension

News

A raft of new employment law measures were announced by the government in last week’s Queen’s Speech—some of which could prove contentious, lawyers say.

Richard Nicolle, partner in Denton Wilde Sapte’s employment and benefits practice, says the most controversial proposal is the extension of the right for parents to request flexible working arrangements.
Although this extends only to the right to request flexible working—not the right to have it—he says, an extension of the number of employees working on a flexible basis will create controversy. 

“The increase in flexible working will concern some employers and create tensions in the workplace if full-time employees consider they are shouldering an undue burden as a result of others working flexibly. The risk for employers of refusing requests from mothers will be that a refusal may be seen as indirectly discriminatory on account of sex,” he says.

Many employers will also be concerned about the potential costs and administrative time of the requirements under the Pensions Bill for the introduction of compulsory employer pension contributions from 2012.
“All employees will be automatically enrolled to such schemes thus removing the difficulty many employees face when starting a new job. Employees can opt out, but those who do not will be obliged to pay in 4%, which would be matched by 3% contribution from their employer and 1% from the government,” says Nicolle.

A new Employment Bill was also proposed which, Nicolle says, partly represents the government’s response to criticism from employers’ organisations that the plethora of employment regulation has adversely affected business.

“One of the intentions of the Bill is to remove unnecessary employment law, most notably the current statutory dismissal and grievance procedures.”
The most significant omission, he adds, was there being no mention of the long-mooted Single Equality Bill.

Issue: 7297 / Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Two promoted to partner in property litigation and education teams

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Cross-border finance and restructuring specialist joins as of counsel in London

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

IP firm promotes litigator to partnership

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll