We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 98

Dismissal because of close relationship was not marriage discrimination

  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • May 31 2012

The EAT decision in Dunn v Institute of Cemetery and Crematorium Management held that marriage discrimination legislation protects a woman against being treated less favourably because she is married to a particular man

Advocate-General advises on trigger point for collective redundancy consultation

  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • -
  • European Union, United Kingdom
  • -
  • May 31 2012

Knowing when to start collective redundancy consultation is a difficult issue for many employers

Supreme Court looks at indirect age discrimination

  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • June 30 2012

Mr Homer retired from the police at age 51, and began work for the Police National Legal Database (PNLD) as a legal adviser

Entire agreement clauses under scrutiny

  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • May 19 2011

It is common in employment contracts to include an 'entire agreement' clause which provides that the employment contract constitutes the entire understanding between employer and employee in relation to the employment

Union acceptance of collective redundancy procedure results in reduction of protective award

  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • December 2 2010

In Lancaster University v The University and College Union the EAT held that where a union had accepted a flawed notification and consultation procedure for university staff on fixed term contracts over a period of twelve years, a tribunal was correct in reducing protective awards from 90 days' pay to 60 days

Protection from harassment: course of conduct

  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • July 20 2011

In Marinello v City of Edinburgh Council the Inner House of the Court of Session has held that an interval of 17 months between incidents of harrassment at work did not automatically mean that there could not be a course of conduct for the purposes of protection under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Sharon Shoesmith

  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • July 20 2011

As reported widely in the press, the Court of Appeal has allowed Sharon Shoesmith’s appeal against the Secretary of State and Haringey London Borough Council relating to judicial review of the decision to dismiss her in the light of the death of Baby P

Referral to ECJ in Alemo-Herron

  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • August 5 2011

The Supreme Court has made a reference to the ECJ in the case of Parkwood Leisure v Alemo-Herron to ascertain whether the Acquired Rights Directive precludes national courts from applying a ‘dynamic’ interpretation to regulation 5 of TUPE (automatic transfer of employees and associated rights and liabilities), particularly in relation to the ongoing application of collective agreements

Costs relevant for objective justification

  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • July 20 2011

In Cherfi v G4S Security Services Ltd, the EAT held that G4S’s request to a Muslim security guard to man a site throughout Friday lunchtimes when he wished to attend his Mosque was, in the circumstances, objectively justifiable

Transferred collective agreements incorporate legislative changes

  • Bircham Dyson Bell
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • August 10 2010

The EAT in Worrall and others v Willmott Dixon Partnership Ltd and another considered the effect of the decision in Parkwood Leisure Ltd v Alemo-Herron and others, that only the terms of a collective agreement in force at the point of a TUPE transfer would bind a transferee and subsequent changes to the collective agreement would not bind it