Blog
From garage to unicorn – Employment law lessons for scaling tech teams
Catherine Bourne
16 December 2015
Case update: Associated employers, continuous employment and the importance of being transparent with the Employment Tribunal
In the case of Schwarzenbach t/a Thames-side Court Estate v Mr D Jones the employee proved that his two most recent employers were “associated employers” and therefore, taking into account the two periods of successive employment, he had the requisite period of continuous employment to bring an unfair dismissal claim.
20 November 2015
Gender diversity on boards – the fight continues
Lord Davies’ five year review into improving the gender balance on British boards has now reached completion, with his end of year summary published on 29 October 2015. The results are in, and in the words of the report itself “Reaching the 25% target for the FTSE 100 is a significant achievement and major milestone in our longer journey to improving the gender balance at the top of British business”.
20 November 2015
Case update: Unfair dismissal: A striking example of procedural errors
In Secretary of State for Justice v Lown, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (the “EAT”), in overturning the first instance decision that Mr Lown had been unfairly dismissed, issued a reminder as to the proper procedural approach Tribunals should adopt when considering unfair dismissal on grounds of misconduct claims.
9 November 2015
Case update: Can someone bring a complaint of indirect discrimination when they themselves do not have the relevant protected characteristic?
That was one of the issues in a recent case involving CHEZ, the local electricity supplier in a predominantly Roma district of Bulgaria.
30 October 2015
Whistleblowing claims: The contracting scope of the "Public Interest" requirement
In Underwood v Wincanton plc, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) has given guidance on the correct interpretation of “in the public interest” for the purposes of whistleblowing under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (“PIDA”). It concluded that a dispute between an employer and a group of just four employees, in relation to their conditions of employment, was “in the public interest” and so capable of being a protected disclosure.