Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Matt Green comments on the FCA fining a Coinbase subsidiary, in Thomson Reuters Regulatory Intelligence

Posted on: July 29th, 2024 by Yvonne Uzoka

Director and Head of Blockchain and Digital Assets and Technology Disputes, Matt Green, comments on the FCA fining Coinbase’s UK e-money business £3.5 million for onboarding high-risk customers.

Matt noted that the fine is a reminder that even the most established and trusted brands in the cryptoasset industry sometimes onboard high-risk customers.

Matt commented: “Funds are often off-ramped at crypto currency exchanges following a fraud, scam and or hack, turning the process of crime from crypto assets to fiat money, to be further laundered. The process itself means even the most trusted cryptocurrency brands can fall short during the onboarding process and allows high risk individuals to use these services to conceal and move money. In some respects, the more legitimate the exchange, the smoother the laundering process can be, subject to know your client checks.”

Matt’s comments were published in Thomson Reuters Regulatory Intelligence, 26 July 2024.

Central Family Court hands down landmark ruling in matrimonial property case

Posted on: July 25th, 2024 by Yvonne Uzoka

In June 2024, HHJ Edward Hess sitting in the Central Family Court handed down his judgment in the case of RM V WP [2024] EWFC 191 (B) ­­– a complex financial remedies case concerning the division of matrimonial property, and to what extent real property had been ‘matrimonialised’.

Jim Richards and Eleanor Wood of Lawrence Stephens acted on behalf of the husband, instructing Jenna Lucas of Pump Court Chambers.

The case centred around four properties owned by the respondent husband, with the wife arguing that she should receive 50% of the equity of all four properties. She argued this on the basis that these properties – owned by the husband prior to the marriage and held in his sole name – had become ‘matrimonialised’ by virtue of serving as family homes throughout their marriage. HHJ Hess found that one of these properties had never served as a family home, and as such had not been ‘matrimonialised’. The wife contended that she should receive 50% of the equity of the three remaining properties if HHJ Hess view was that this asset was not matrimonalised.

In considering what the wife’s award should be, HHJ Hess concluded in paragraph 37 of his judgment that “there is justification here for departing in the husband’s direction from an equal division of the net equity in the three homes which have been family homes. My view is that the fair answer here is for the wife to be awarded the amount that meets her needs.”

HHJ Hess ultimately assessed the wife’s needs to be less than 50% of the equity in the three ‘matrimonialised’ properties and granted her award on this basis accordingly.

Eleanor Wood, Co-Head of Family at Lawrence Stephens and solicitor for the husband, commented: “We are pleased to have secured a successful outcome for our client in a complex case which presented several issues which needed to be considered and dealt with at various stages.

“This highlights the importance of a well-prepared case to identify how the assets were used and where they originated when determining how they should be divided upon separation. The outcome is a fair one. It reflects the needs of the wife in conjunction with how the assets were used or matrimonialised, and that it is not always a simple sharing principle being applied.”

The full judgment can be read here.

Code of Practice on fire and re-hire now in force.

Posted on: July 22nd, 2024 by Hugh Dineen-Lees

This article was updated on 2 August 2024 to take account of the changes to the statutory Code of Practice on fire and re-hire as re-issued by the Government on 30 July 2024. 

On 18 July 2024, the Secretary of State issued the Statutory Code of Practice on Dismissal and Re-engagement under Section 203 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. This is more commonly referred to as the Code of Practice on ‘fire and re-hire’.

The code provides practical guidance on how to promote the improvement of industrial relations. The Secretary of State considered that the practice of dismissing and re-hiring employees as a means to change their terms and conditions of employment could give rise to conflict between employers, employees and Trade Unions, which could subsequently lead to a deterioration in employment and industrial relations.

The code will provide guidance to employers, employees and their representatives where an employer is considering making changes to one or more of its employees’ contracts of employment and envisages that if the employee does not agree to some or all of the changes, the employer may opt for dismissal and re-engagement in respect of that employee. Some of the key provisions include;

  • Employers need to explore alternatives to ‘fire and rehire’ and it should only be used as a last resort.
  • Employers should not threaten dismissal if it is not actually envisaged and must not coerce employees into signing new terms and conditions.
  • The employer should ensure that the only terms which are changed are those which have been subject to the information-sharing and consultation process and should not use this as an opportunity to make any further changes.
  • A requirement to consult ‘for as long as reasonably possible’, but — unlike collective redundancy consultation — there is no minimum time period. Employers are told to contact Acas at an early stage before they raise ‘fire and rehire’ with the workforce.
  • Once the employer becomes aware the proposed changes are not agreed, they should re-examine them. The employer should consider feedback from employees and/or their representatives.
  • The employer might commit to reviewing the changes at a future set time and reconsider whether they are still needed. If more than one change is being implemented, the employer might also consider introducing them on a phased basis.

Whilst there is no stand alone claim for a breach of the code and its provisions, the Tribunals must take this into account in all relevant cases, including claims for unfair dismissal. The Tribunals will have the ability to uplift compensation by up to 25% if an employer unreasonably fails to follow it or reduce any award by up to 25% if the employee has unreasonably failed to comply. However, the uplift will not apply to protective awards for failure to inform and consult in consultation redundancy situations.

It is also worth noting that the Labour party have pledged to legislate to end ‘fire and re-hire’ and to replace and strengthen the code. Therefore, if you are facing any issues in relation to the above, speak to our specialist employment team where we can provide up-to-date information and advise you on how to manage any potential conflicts which may arise.

Collateral warranties – a turning point?

Posted on: July 18th, 2024 by Natasha Cox

On 9 July 2024, the Supreme Court gave judgment in a case which raised the question of whether the beneficiary of a collateral warranty had the right to refer disputes arising from the warranty to adjudication.

If you would like to know more about this judgment, please download the attached PDF.

If you would like some advice on the potential impacts of this ruling. please get in touch with Matthew Needham-Laing.

2024.07.18 Abbey Healthcare (Mill Hill) Ltd v Augusta 2008 LLP collateral warranties

How athletes and celebrities can ensure they stay on the fairway during divorce proceedings

Posted on: July 18th, 2024 by Natasha Cox

Following Rory McIlroy’s recent divorce filing, and his subsequent dismissal of these proceedings, Head of Family Jim Richards and Associate in the Sports & Entertainment team William Bowyer explore how celebrities and athletes can ensure they stay on the fairway during divorce proceedings. 

Jim and William’s article was published in eprivateclient, 13 June 2024, and can be found here.

Golf superstar Rory McIlroy’s recently announced divorce raises a number of important questions for athletes and celebrities managing divorce proceedings – particularly when filing for divorce overseas. 

While Mr McIlroy and his wife Erica Stoll have since ended divorce proceedings, this widely reported case still bears relevance for those looking to manage high-profile separation proceedings.

High-net-worth individuals such as athletes and other celebrities often have a choice of jurisdictions in which to file for divorce. The forum for proceedings can be pivotal to a case, and thus will often be a key factor in deciding where proceedings are filed. 

In Mr McIlroy’s case, the Northern Ireland-born sportsman had papers served on Erica Stoll, his wife of seven years and a New York state native, at their home in Jupiter, Florida. Court documents were subsequently revealed to have been filed in Palm Beach County, Florida, confirming the jurisdiction selected by Mr McIlroy for the couple’s divorce proceedings.

Deciding on the most appropriate jurisdiction to deal with a divorce case can, however, lead to a number of challenges in dealing with assets across a number of jurisdictions as well as the tax considerations to which high-net-worth individuals must pay heed if they are to stay on the fairway during divorce proceedings.

Failure to consider the various cross-jurisdictional complexities of divorce can give rise to costly and unwanted satellite litigation, and suggests that it is therefore important for athletes and celebrities to seek advice from legal, tax and pension professionals from all relevant jurisdictions to ensure as swift and efficient a resolution as possible. 

However, the procurement of such counsel comes at a not inconsiderable cost, especially in situations where there is a wide range of disputes between the divorcing spouses, leaving both parties exposed to a significant cost burden at the outset of the case and throughout the ensuing proceedings.

Beyond the legal case itself, image and reputation management is also of the utmost importance, particularly for athletes and celebrities, as a messy and public separation could result in lucrative endorsements being lost. In Mr McIlroy’s case, as with so many others living in the glare of the media spotlight, already every available detail of the divorce proceedings is being pored over by the press and public alike in typically scurrilous fashion. 

Mr Mcllroy’s brand partners will need to consider their contractual arrangements with the golfer and assess whether a) this matter impacts their partnership and b) whether they have any grounds under their contract to end the relationship or at the very least, use it to their commercial advantage.

Celebrities who are forced to live their lives in the public eye have to be extra vigilant as to how each and every move they make will be interpreted, no matter how private the matter at stake. The well-documented travails of Mr McIlroy’s fellow golfer Tiger Woods during the collapse of his marriage to Erin Woods in 2009 will have given Mr McIlroy and his advisers ample food for thought when considering how best to handle the optics of his own marital breakdown.

High-net-worth individuals, celebrities and athletes must seek a wide range of advice before filing for divorce – including everything from tax and pensions advice to image rights and IP – to ensure that separation proceedings are handled swiftly and any potential fallout is minimised. Of paramount importance is choosing representatives to sensitively handle child arrangements to minimise the impact of the separation on the couple’s offspring. 

Frequently, children become unwitting victims of warring spouses’ anger towards one another during divorce proceedings, and all too often the glare of publicity spurs parties into even rasher and more regrettable actions than they may otherwise have taken had they not felt compelled to ‘prove’ themselves and their resilience to the world at large.

Similarly, it is imperative for both parties in divorce proceedings to select advisers as carefully as possible. It is, after all, their guidance which will be of critical importance to the outcome of the case, and to the ultimate financial settlement between the divorcing couple. 

Divorce and separation is never easy, nor pleasant, for either side, but when played out in the public eye there is even more potential for mistakes and missteps. Time spent calmly and diligently assessing options at the outset of a case may at times seem onerous and expensive, but if deployed properly will pay dividends in the end.

Lawrence Stephens completes complex loan for Blue Shield Capital

Posted on: July 17th, 2024 by Hugh Dineen-Lees

We are pleased to report that Lawrence Stephens has successfully completed a £5.2m facility with Blue Shield Capital, facilitating the acquisition and buy out of the share capital of two companies that own a 10-storey commercial office property in Norwich.

The team was led by Director and Head of Banking Ajoy Bose-Mallick, with support from Senior Associate Ashley Wright and Trainee Solicitor Alex Ruder on the banking side, Senior Associate Rachel Coulthard  on the real estate finance side; and from Solicitor Lucy Cadley for corporate/commercial matters.

Ajoy commented: “This complex transaction is a testament to the hard work and collaboration of our Banking, Real Estate, and corporate teams. We are delighted to see our client’s loan portfolio expand.”

Sports and Entertainment team appointed to Sport Resolutions Pro Bono Service

Posted on: July 11th, 2024 by Natasha Cox

We’re thrilled to announce that our Sports and Entertainment team at Lawrence Stephens have been appointed to the Sport Resolutions Pro Bono Service.

The Pro Bono Service provides independent, efficient and accessible dispute resolution services to those in the sports industry of limited financial means.

The team firmly believes that costs should not be a barrier to justice, and this is just a natural extension of the substantial pro bono services we offer to athletes in need, from acting for clients in successful overdue payables claims at FIFA to helping women’s footballers establish their image rights structures via our Women In Football pledge.

Mohit Pasricha, Angelique Richardson, Jake Cohen and William Bowyer are all delighted to be appointed to the service and are proud to continue our work in protecting athletes and their rights.

Learn more about Sport Resolutions Pro Bono Service here: https://www.sportresolutions.com/services/pro-bono-legal-advice

Abtin Yeganeh comments on landlord-imposed work from home bans in The Independent

Posted on: July 8th, 2024 by Natasha Cox

Senior Associate, Abtin Yeganeh, comments on landlords banning their tenants from working from home, as well as tenants’ protections in this area, in The Independent.

Abtin’s comments were published in The Independent, 07 July 2024.

“As a general rule, a landlord cannot stop a tenant from working from home as it would interfere with a tenant’s statutory right to quiet enjoyment of their property. The position is somewhat more complicated where a tenant seeks to run a business from their rental property. With that said, whilst landlords can seek to exclude a tenant’s right to work from home, The Small Business Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (subject to several exclusions) provides that landlords cannot unreasonably refuse a tenant’s request to do so.”  

Emma Cocker comments on challenging bad references from previous employers in The Telegraph

Posted on: July 5th, 2024 by Natasha Cox

Emma Cocker, Senior Associate in the Employment team, comments on whether an employer can give a bad reference, and how employees can challenge a bad reference from a previous employer.

Emma’s comments were published in The Telegraph, 5 July 2024.

“An employer can give a negative reference, but it must be factual. Employers owe the subject of a reference a duty to take reasonable care to ensure the information it contains is true, accurate and fair. The reference must not give a misleading impression. If a referee gives a reference which is misleading, they may be liable for negligence, either to the new employer or the employee.

“In addition, if a referee knowingly includes false information with the intention that the recipient will rely on it, the referee will be liable to the recipient for a civil claim of deceit.

“It is difficult for employees to challenge a bad reference, unless they can demonstrate that the information was inaccurate, discriminatory or was given in retaliation for raising allegations of discrimination or whistleblowing. In practice, most employees will only become aware of a bad reference once a job offer has been withdrawn. At that stage, it is highly unlikely a prospective employer could be convinced to offer a role again, as the seeds of doubt will have already been sown.

“The only real option is for the employee to take legal advice to see whether they have a claim against the referee. If an employee does become aware of a bad reference before it has been shared with a prospective employer, they should try to discuss the reasons for the negative content with their new employer as soon as possible.

“Protecting your reputation is simple: be the best employee you can be. Courteous, on time for work and reliable – these are all behaviours employers hold in high regard. If there are circumstances which might affect your ability to comply with expected norms, such as being a parent or carer, or having a disability, discuss these with your employer as soon as possible so they are aware of any mitigating circumstances.

“There is a common misconception that employers are obliged to provide references. However, with the exception of regulated industries such as financial services, this is not the case. In reality, most employers will provide a “factual” reference, outlining the employee’s name, job titles and dates of employment, but they cannot be forced to provide further information.

“Employers are also entitled to include a disclaimer within the reference that limits any liability to the recipient of the reference. References may be given orally or in writing. However it is generally safer to provide basic factual references in writing with no further information given to avoid any liability to the employee or the recipient. If incorrect or misleading information is given, the recipient may allege negligence. Do not be tempted to say things on the phone that you wouldn’t commit to in writing!

“If you are not happy with a reference provided by your ex-employer, the first step is to find out whether the reference has actually been sent to the prospective employer. If not, you may be able to talk to your ex-employer and see whether they might be prepared to change the content. Remember however that they are under a duty to provide accurate information, so they may not be willing to change it. Also consider whether their approach or any of the information they have provided might be discriminatory, such as commenting negatively on high absence levels if you have taken a period of parental leave, or on your performance which has been adversely affected by a disability.

“If you have been given a bad reference because of or after raising concerns about discrimination, or after you have “blown the whistle”, you may have a claim against your ex-employer for victimisation or whistleblowing detriment. It is important to take legal advice at an early stage to assess whether you might have viable claims against the referee. This will be especially important if you have lost a job opportunity because of a negative reference.”  

If you have any questions relating to the above, please contact a member of our Employment team.

12-month bridge loan secured for Blue Shield Capital

Posted on: July 4th, 2024 by Hugh Dineen-Lees

We are pleased to share with you that we have acted on a £6 million loan for our clients Blue Shield Capital on the refinance of three stabilised, income-producing residential assets.

This £6 million facility will allow the borrower to facilitate a restructure of their group operations and refinance some of their property portfolio in order to expand their business.

Ajoy Bose-Mallick Director and Head of Banking led the team with assistance from Senior Associate Ashley Wright & trainee Alex Ruder on banking and Paul Marsh Director on real estate.

Commenting on this transaction, Ajoy Bose-Mallick said “we have completed on another important funding facility for our clients which will expand their loan book and showcase their ability to fund larger complex transactions. Again this deal highlighted the Banking and Real Estate Finance team working seamlessly together to deliver on a successful completion for our clients.”    

General Election 2024 – what are the various parties’ proposals relating to employment law?

Posted on: July 4th, 2024 by Natasha Cox

While many may feel that the outcome of today’s General Election is a foregone conclusion, we felt it was important to look at each of the political parties’ manifestos to consider what they are proposing in the field of employment law – and what the consequences of these might be. 

Some of the parties have announced extensive proposals (which could mean the Lawrence Stephens’ Employment team will be extremely busy over the coming months!) while others have caused us to wonder how they will be implemented in light of recent court rulings / existing legislation.

If you have any questions on how the general election may affect your obligations as an employer, please contact any member of our Employment Team (see end of article).

Labour

In summary, Labour propose to:

  • Introduce a day one right to sick pay, parental leave and unfair dismissal;
  • Extend Employment Tribunal time limits for bringing all claims from three months to six months;
  • Ban “exploitative” zero hours contracts (which means an outright ban on such contracts is unlikely);
  • End fire and rehire (although Labour’s New Deal document indicates they would stop short of an outright ban);
  • Set up a single enforcement body to enforce workers’ rights;
  • Alter the criteria for determining national minimum wage so all adults are entitled to the same minimum wage;
  • Create a “Fair Pay Agreement” to allow for sectoral collective bargaining in the adult social care sector;
  • Give employees the right to have a contract which reflects the hours they regularly work based on a 12-week reference period;
  • Require employers with more than 250 employees to have a menopause action plan;
  • Place new duties on large employers to produce ethnicity and disability pay gap reports;
  • Make collective redundancy consultation requirements dependent on the number of redundancies across the whole business rather than the number at each ‘establishment’;
  • Require section 1 statements to inform staff of their right to join a trade union;
  • Introduce a right to ‘switch off’;
  • Consult on an eventual move towards a single status of worker, incorporating all but the genuinely self-employed;
  • Make flexible working a default right unless employers have a ‘good reason’ to refuse it;
  • Reverse the changes made under the Trade Union Act 2016 (which placed more stringent requirements on those engaging in industrial action);
  • Abolish the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023;
  • Remove the requirement for fully postal ballots for industrial action;
  • Make it easier for unions to gain recognition;
  • Give trade unions the right to access workplaces for recruitment and organising purposes; and
  • Introduce a right to unpaid bereavement leave (which is currently only available following the death of a child).

The full manifesto can be found here: https://lnkd.in/eFZQ_mva

Conservatives

In summary, the Conservatives propose to:

  • Overhaul the fit note system to move responsibility from GPs to other healthcare professionals;
  • Continue with the implementation of minimum service level agreements in relation to industrial action;
  • Cut employee National Insurance contributions to 6% from 2027; and
  • Abolish National Insurance for self-employed people by the end of the next parliament.

It’s worth noting that the first two proposals are not new – a consultation on the fit note system had already started before the General Election was called and we already knew the Government planned to introduce minimum service levels during strikes in hospitals and schools. It looks largely like business as usual if the Conservatives are successful.

The full manifesto can be found here: https://lnkd.in/ekQNictf


Liberal Democrats

In summary, the Lib Dems propose to:

  • Establish a new ‘dependent contractor’ employment status between ‘employment’ and ‘self-employment’, with entitlements to basic rights such as minimum earnings levels, sick pay and holiday entitlement;
  • Increase minimum wage by 20% for people on zero-hour contracts at times of normal demand to compensate them for the uncertainty of earnings;
  • Promote employee ownership by giving staff in listed companies with 250+ employees a ‘right to request’ shares;
  • Change the burden of proof in Employment Tribunal claims so that the employer has to disprove employment status, rather than the employee proving it;
  • Improve Statutory Sick Pay by removing the 3-day waiting period and lower earnings limit;
  • Extend the use of name-blind recruitment processes;
  • Make parental leave and pay day 1 rights;
  • Double Statutory Maternity Pay and Shared Parental Pay to £350pw;
  • Introduce a ‘use it or lose it’ month for fathers and partners, paid at 90% of earnings;
  • Introduce new Equality Act protected characteristics of ‘caring’ and ‘care experience’;
  • Require large employers to publish data on gender, ethnicity, disability, and LGBT+ employment levels, pay gaps and progression, and publish five-year aspirational diversity targets;
  • Introduce specialist disability employment support and simplify the Access to Work scheme; and
  • Introduce ‘Adjustment Passports’ to record the adjustments, modifications and equipment a disabled person has received, and ensure that Access to Work support and equipment stays with the person if they change jobs.

While there are undoubtedly some proposals that will be attractive to the electorate, the proposed introduction of ‘dependent contractor’ employment status seems to be something of style over substance – aren’t these people already classified as ‘workers’? In addition, the proposed introduction of new protected characteristics of ‘caring’ and ‘care experience’ seems fraught with difficulties – it would certainly keep us employment lawyers busy with the courts grappling to put into practice what these terms actually mean…

The full manifesto can be found here: https://lnkd.in/ehU4gcMw

Reform

In summary, Reform UK intend to:

  • Abolish IR35 rules to support sole traders;
  • ‘’Scrap thousands of laws that hold back British business and damage productivity, including employment laws that make it riskier to hire people’’;
  • Replace the Equality Act 2010;
  • Scrap all Diversity Equality and Inclusion roles that, “cost huge sums, create division, inequality and exclusion, and reduce productivity.’’; and
  • “Scrap EU Regulations with immediate effect. British Laws on [employment] are still based on EU regulations.”

I think it’s fair to say that Reform UK’s manifesto is somewhat light on the detail of how they plan to achieve the above…

The full manifesto can be found here: https://lnkd.in/eMYNR6Qr


Plaid Cymru

In summary, Plaid Cymru intend to:

  • Support the devolution of employment law to Wales;
  • Make paid bereavement and miscarriage leave a day 1 right;
  • Extend the entitlement to statutory bereavement leave and pay entitlement to all people with a ‘close relationship’ to a person who has died;
  • Increase Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) in line with Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) and remove the lower earnings limit;
  • Reform Shared Parental Leave;
  • Consider making Carer’s Leave paid;
  • Re-introduce the ‘bankers’ bonus cap’
  • Implement an apprenticeship living wage and pay social care workers at least £1 above the real living wage;
  • Investigate increasing higher earners’ National Insurance contributions and promote employee ownership models;
  • Reverse “the Tories’ regressive anti-strike legislation”;
  • Support legislation to tackle insecure work and outlaw fire and re-hire tactics;
  • Abolish compulsory zero-hours contracts;
  • Establish the right to ‘disconnect’;
  • Promote LGBTQ+ inclusion throughout society, including all workplaces, and propose a simplified, de-medicalised gender self-identification system;
  • Adopt the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Disabled People into UK law and introduce a Business, Human Rights and Environment Bill which would mandate that private companies conduct due diligence in their supply chains to prevent human rights abuses; and
  • Put the power to decide Bank Holidays in Wales in the hands of the Senedd and make St David’s Day a Bank Holiday in Wales on 1 March each year.

There’s definitely some overlap here with the other manifestos described above (i.e. Labour’s pledge regarding the right to disconnect, as well as increasing SMP and SSP, reforming zero hours contracts and making some employment rights available from day 1).

However there are also some issues that are likely to be divisive, such as the proposal to introduce a simplified, de-medicalised gender self-identification system. How will this work in practice in light of such decision as Adams v Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, Meade v (1) Westminster City Council; and (2) Social Work England and Forstater v CGD Europe?

The full manifesto can be found here: https://lnkd.in/enRssnpZ

SNP

In summary, the SNP intend to:

  • Support the devolution of employment law to Scotland to enable changes such as banning ‘exploitative’ zero hours contracts and ‘fire and rehire’, as well as increasing the level of the National Minimum Wage and removing the age brackets;
  • Create a single status of ‘worker’ for all but the ‘genuinely self-employed’;
  • Increase access to statutory sick pay by removing the lower earnings limit and the waiting period;
  • Increase the rate of Statutory Maternity Pay to 100% of average weekly earnings for the first 12 weeks, dropping to 90% of average weekly earnings or £150 (whichever is lower) for 40 weeks;
  • Increase the available period of Shared Parental Leave from 52 to 64 weeks with the additional 12 weeks to be the minimum taken by the father on a ‘use it or lose it’ basis to encourage better uptake of the statutory right; and
  • Support the repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 and the Trade Union Act 2016

Any of this sounding familiar?

The full manifesto can be found here: https://lnkd.in/eh5YiBKj

Greens

In summary, the Green Party intend to:

  • Repeal anti-union legislation and introduce a ‘positive’ Charter of Workers’ Rights, containing a right to strike and a legal obligation on employers to recognise trade unions;
  • Remove ‘arbitrary’ ballot thresholds and requirements for postal ballots;
  • Overturn bans on secondary picketing and industrial action for political objectives;
  • Introduce a maximum 10:1 pay ratio for all private and public-sector organisations;
  • Increase the national minimum wage to £15 an hour, regardless of age;
  • Campaign for ‘safe sick pay’;
  • Provide equal rights for all workers from their first day of employment, including platform workers, zero hours workers and those working in the ‘gig economy’;
  • Properly fund the enforcement of workers’ rights and abolish tribunal fees;
  • Move to a four-day working week;
  • Transition towards a green economy, led by workers and trade unions;
  • Establish an Offshore Energy and Skills Passport so that workers can transition between offshore energy industries;
  • Require all large and medium-sized companies to carry out equal pay audits, redress any inequalities and extend pay-gap protections to all protected characteristics;
  • Introduce a right to flexible working and ensure disabled workers have the in-job support they need, as well as ‘proper pay and conditions’;
  • ‘Defend’ the Human Rights Act 1998 and continued access to the European Court of Human Rights;
  • Protect the right to religious expression and support gender self-identification for trans and non-binary people; and
  • Push for a precautionary regulatory approach to the development of AI, ensuring that workers’ rights and interests are respected when AI leads to significant changes in working conditions.

The full manifesto can be found here: https://lnkd.in/emtteMbV

If you have any questions on how the general election may affect your obligations as an employer – or any other employment law concerns, please contact any member of our Employment Team (see below).

Changes to the obligation to inform and consult on TUPE transfers

Posted on: July 1st, 2024 by Natasha Cox

Changes to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (‘TUPE’) come into effect on 1 July 2024.

These changes are likely to be welcomed by small to medium-sized businesses as they provide greater flexibility to employers in complying with their duty to inform and consult affected employees in relation to a TUPE transfer.

A business preparing for the sale of part or all of an undertaking or service provision can now consult directly with affected employees if:
– there are no recognised trade union or employee representatives AND
– the employer has not already invited the affected employees to elect representatives AND
– either the employer has fewer than 50 employees OR
– fewer than 10 employees will transfer.

There is nothing to prevent an employer in either scenario from arranging an election to vote for employee representatives if this is preferred.

Please get in touch if you require any advice as to how to get the process right for your business. A failure to do so can be costly: transferors and transferees are jointly liable for any breach of the duty to inform and consult. This could result in protective awards reaching as high as 13 weeks’ gross pay for each affected employee.