WorkLife entries posted during April 2016

Don’t think restrictively: Being open minded about proposed changes to non-compete clauses

Don’t think restrictively: Being open minded about proposed changes to non-compete clauses

I am sure many of you have seen the recent announcement that the Government has launched a call for evidence on non-compete clauses on the basis that such clauses "could be stifling British innovation". Employers have various tools in their armoury to protect their business, information and clients from potential damage caused by departing employees. These range from the lower end of the "toughness" scale (express restrictions on disclosing business sensitive information) through to the fairl...

Employment Agencies - new Regulations

Employment Agencies - new Regulations

The Government has published the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2016 which will come into force in May. 

Contact during sick leave: more or less?

Contact during sick leave: more or less?

We are often asked by (quite rightly) cautious employers for advice in dealing with employees on long term sick leave, particularly when there are outstanding disciplinary and/or grievance issues. Frankly, these situations can become a right muddle and need to be dealt with delicately, but in our experience, pro-actively. Some of the media reporting of the recent case of Private Medicine Intermediaries v Hodkinson may have struck fear into those dealing with HR issues, but where does this cas...

Should the 2011 decision of the Supreme Court that school staff are not entitled to legal representation in internal disciplinary hearings be revisited?

Should the 2011 decision of the Supreme Court that school staff are not entitled to legal representation in internal disciplinary hearings be revisited?

In 2010, the Court of Appeal considered this issue in the case of G, R (on the application of) v X School and others. G was a teaching assistant against whom an allegation was made that he had had sexual contact with a 15 year old boy. The CPS decided against a prosecution. However, governors at the School's ensuing disciplinary hearing, refused to permit him to be accompanied by a solicitor although they did recognise his right to be accompanied by a colleague or trade union representative.