A monthly checklist from Atom Content Marketing highlighting new and pending laws, regulations, codes of practice and rulings that could have an impact on your business.
Employers can legally provide 'special case' workers - whose jobs may prevent them taking a continuous 20-minute break for every six hours worked as required under working time laws - with frequent, shorter breaks, the Court of Appeal has confirmed.
Employers may suspend employees as a first response to a potential disciplinary matter without it being a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence between them, provided there is reasonable and proper cause, the Court of Appeal has ruled.
Will-makers with financial responsibility for a partner should note that a wish to prevent their partner's children from previous relationships inheriting when the partner dies may not be an adequate reason for cutting the partner out of their will, a recent ruling illustrates.
Employers with, or considering including bad leaver provisions in their articles or a share purchase agreement should consider whether they could amount to an unenforceable penalty, or be unconscionable or an unlawful deduction from wages.
Employers should not dismiss employees close to a TUPE transfer without taking specialist legal advice, or risk the dismissal being found automatically unfair.
Employers will welcome guidance from the court on how to determine whether a worker is 'disabled' within the legal definition.
Employers must follow fair procedures, including carrying out a proper investigation, when deciding whether to issue a disciplinary sanction such as a final written warning. However, a tribunal will not generally re-open the validity of past written warnings when deciding whether a subsequent dismissal is fair, a recent case shows.
Dissenting directors in a boardroom dispute should not 'go public' with the dispute or with confidential company information, and confine these to debate and discussion within the boardroom - or risk breaching their statutory duty to exercise independence in their role, a ruling makes clear.
Employers trying to justify an apparently discriminatory provision, criteria or practice can do so by justifying it in general - balancing its impact against employees sharing a protected characteristic that affects when they can work - and not its impact on the particular employee complaining about it.
Employers entitled to access an employee's personal internet accounts on a company phone or other device should avoid changing the security details on those accounts as this may breach their duty of care towards the employee, a ruling makes clear.
Disclaimer: These publications from Atom Content Marketing are for general guidance only, for businesses in the United Kingdom governed by the laws of England. Atom Content Marketing, expert contributors and ICAEW (as distributor) disclaim all liability for any errors or omissions.