Please sign in with your existing account details.
Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.
Privacy statement - Terms and conditions
Forgotten your password?
You have exceeded the maximum number of login attempts for this email address and your account has been locked. An email has been sent to member of Browne Jacobson's web team and some one will be contacting you over the next two working days with details of how to change your password.
Are you sure you want to remove this item from you pinned content?
… not always. In the case of Gisda Cyf v Mrs Barratt, Mrs Barratt was informed of the outcome of her disciplinary hearing by letter. The letter was signed for her by her son on 30th November, however, Mrs Barratt was on holiday and did not read the letter until 4th December when she returned.
The Supreme Court held that her date of termination was the date she read the letter and therefore her unfair dismissal claim was in time.
Employers should take careful note of this decision in relation to appeal time limits. Where disciplinary outcomes are advised by letter, employers should consider a more flexible approach to time limits allowed for submitting an appeal where it is known the employee is on holiday or for some other reason will not read the outcome letter on the date of delivery. The Acas Code does not specify a time limit and employers should therefore ensure they consider all the circumstances before rejecting an appeal as out of time.
As the use of social media continues to increase, its overlap with working life is becoming more and more prevalent.
View blog
In his 2018 Autumn Budget, the then Chancellor, Phillip Hammond, announced a significant change to the way liability for IR35 breaches will be dealt with for private sector companies from April 2020.
Under the ET Rules, all judgments and accompanying written reasons must be published on a pubic register which the general public can access online.
The Supreme Court in Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd has determined that where post-termination restrictive covenants (i.e. “non-compete” clauses) in employment contracts go further than reasonably necessary to protect an employer’s business interests, it can apply the ‘blue pencil test,’ severing the offending words and leaving the remaining enforceable clause in place.
Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.
Sign up