Employment, Discrimination & Redundancy Law News
|
|
Written by Joanne Sefton
|
|
Wednesday, 25 August 2010 14:23 |
|
The facts
Mr Wedgewood was employed as an accountant by the respondent, which operated a motor car franchise. Mr Wedgewood was notified that his position was at risk of redundancy and, after some consultation, he was dismissed by reason of redundancy. The dismissal was confirmed by letter dated 4 November 2008, which stated that notice would expire on 1 December 2008.
|
|
|
Written by Anthony Philpott
|
|
Wednesday, 25 August 2010 14:13 |
|
Employers need to take a sympathetic approach where an employee suffers from ill health. What happens, however, when the employer reaches the ‘point of no return’? How do they ensure any subsequent dismissal is fair, and how long do they need to wait before dismissing? This article advises on the correct process to follow where an employee is absent through ill health on a repeated or long-term basis.
|
|
Written by Andrew Valerio
|
|
Wednesday, 25 August 2010 13:55 |
|
With the number of workplace claims at record levels, it is increasingly important for employers to understand when the ‘effective date of termination’ (EDT) occurs. The EDT can dictate whether the employee has sufficient continuous service to bring a claim, whether a claim is presented in time and, in some cases, whether the employee was in service on a date which entitles him to a bonus or incentive award. The recent case of Geys v Société Générale should also act as a warning to employers who believe the EDT is something that is inherently in their control. This article examines the principles surrounding the EDT in the context of ambiguous dismissals and resignations, the guidance that can be taken from the Geys case and why the EDT matters.
|
|
Written by Employment Law Newsletter
|
|
Wednesday, 25 August 2010 13:18 |
|
Employers who use pre-employment health questionnaires could soon find themselves falling foul of the law, employment lawyers have warned.
|
|
Written by Employment Law Newsletter
|
|
Wednesday, 25 August 2010 13:14 |
|
Employers need more time to prepare for the end of the default retirement age (DRA), business representatives have warned.
|
|
Written by Employment Law Newsletter
|
|
Wednesday, 25 August 2010 13:11 |
|
Employment tribunals are struggling to cope with record levels of claims and are in urgent need of reform, lawyers report.
|
|
Written by EmploymentLawForum
|
|
Thursday, 29 July 2010 12:54 |
|
The Default Retirement Age (DRA) will be abolished from 21 October 2011 under proposals published by the government. The new plans allow for a six month transition from the existing regulations, following the announcement in the Budget that the DRA would be phased out from April 2011. Currently employers can make staff retire at 65 regardless of circumstances. The aim is for people, living longer and healthier lives, to be encouraged to work longer.
|
|
Written by Calum Haswell
|
|
Friday, 25 June 2010 07:37 |
|
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has published its National Minimum Wage – Low Pay Commission remit for 2011 report and Government response to the 2010 report (pdf) on the BIS website.
|
|
Written by Nigel Baker
|
|
Thursday, 24 June 2010 07:12 |
The imposition of vicariously liability can have significant ramifications for an employer who may have to pay significant sums in compensation to a successful claimant. How has the concept developed, and what does it mean for employers?
|
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 1 of 22 |
Each month expert contributors provide commentary and analysis on a variety of subjects including employment rights, discrimination and health and safety. regular materials news, legislation updates and crucial cases.
News
link:http://www.garbhandbags.com ...
If a company is proposing to vary you...
My son has been off sick and we atten...
I have heard by hearsay that the comp...
you may have a claim for notice monie...