Blog
From garage to unicorn – Employment law lessons for scaling tech teams
Catherine Bourne
The Bank of Queensland has made a splash in the news recently, following its statement that it will take identifying information including name, age, gender and address, out of CVs before their recruitment process for senior and executive roles begins. The purpose of this policy is to attract more women to senior roles and to avoid unconscious bias in recruitment.
In Punjab National Bank (International) Limited and others v Gosain UKEAT/0003/14, the EAT held that covert recordings of public and private conversations at disciplinary and grievance meetings were admissible in evidence, and could be considered by the Tribunal when it came to determining the case at full hearing.
The case of London Borough of Barnet v Unison and another considered what the starting point should be for calculating compensation for failure to consult collectively. The EAT has held that the starting point of the maximum award should only be used where the employer had not engaged in any consultation at all.
Whilst redundant employees are usually entitled to receive statutory redundancy payments from their employer, the contractual right to receive enhanced redundancy payments is less common in practice. Sometimes the employer is liable for enhanced redundancy payments because it is bound by a business or industry wide collective agreement that sets out enhanced redundancy pay terms. Alternatively the employer may be liable for enhanced redundancy payments pursuant to the express provisions of the terms and conditions of employment of some or all of its employees. The relevant enhanced redundancy package terms may be set out in individual employment contracts, or in another contractual document (for example, a contractual redundancy policy in the employee handbook). However, that is not necessarily the end of the story: it is also possible for employees to benefit from an implied contractual entitlement to enhanced redundancy pay. The case of Peacock Stores v Peregrine & Ors is an example of this.
In the two separate cases of CD v STC and Z v A differing Advocate General opinions had previously been published on the same day, giving rise to uncertainty concerning what rights to leave (if any) commissioning mothers in a surrogacy arrangement have.
Legal Notices | Privacy Notice | Fraud Warning | Modern Slavery Statement | Complaints | Website Terms | Cookie Policy | Accessibility | Site Map
© 2025 Kingsley Napley LLP. All rights reserved. Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, registration number 500046.
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility