Ian Smith studies the stories making employment law headlines
Employment law in one guise or another is rarely out of the news, and one example of that recently has been the controversy over gagging clauses in settlements, with the NHS and the BBC coming in for considerable criticism on this ground. The first case considered this month arose in the different context of whistleblowing but it is suggested that it could also be significant in relation to compromise agreements seeking to prevent future spilling of various beans. The second case contains a reaffirmation by the Court of Appeal of some pretty basic stuff on the use of warnings in a misconduct case, and is also notable for an expression of exasperation by the court at the excessive length and complexity of what should have been a relatively straightforward (not to say old-fashioned) misconduct case.
Whistleblowing
Onyango v Berkeley Solicitors UKEAT/0407/12 (25 January 2013, unreported) is a short but very much to-the-point decision by the EAT under Judge Clark which makes an important
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
