header-logo header-logo

22 March 2024
Issue: 8064 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Disciplinary&grievance procedures
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Can draft code tackle fire & rehire?

164876

Remember the P&O fire and rehire scandal? A final draft of the statutory code on dismissal and re-engagement has now been laid before Parliament, Charles Pigott writes in this week’s NLJ

Pigott, professional support lawyer, Mills & Reeve, reviews the contents of the draft code, which was prompted by P&O’s firing of 800 seafarers without consultation in 2022. It is due to take effect in the summer.

He sets the code in context, writing that it ‘sits in an area occupied by a large number of overlapping legal provisions’, and highlights some shortfalls. As for what the draft code achieves, Pigott writes: ‘The key change is that the revised draft presents the steps an employer is required to take in a more logical order.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

HFW—Nelson Wang

HFW—Nelson Wang

HFW strengthens global insurance practice and Greater China offering with London Partner hire

Burges Salmon—David McEwing

Burges Salmon—David McEwing

Burges Salmon boosts Energy and Utilities practice with appointment of David McEwing

Browne Jacobson—Alexander Studholme

Browne Jacobson—Alexander Studholme

Browne Jacobson adds international construction arbitration partner in London push

NEWS
Law firm trainees are choosing US firms over their UK comparators, according to Chambers’ annual report on UK trainee satisfaction
A former senior judge has warned peers against scrapping juries for fraud and financial crimes, ahead of the Courts and Tribunals Bill’s second reading in the House of Lords this week
Civil practitioners face changes spanning debt recovery, workplace harassment and possession claims, alongside guidance on insolvency challenges and children proceedings

Finding matrimonial wealth is as challenging as dividing it, as family disputes draw practitioners into asset tracing, offshore structures and insolvency

Agreement between opponents offers no guarantee that a court will approve a retrospective increase to a costs budget
back-to-top-scroll