header-logo header-logo

15 November 2007
Issue: 7297 / Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment lawyers predict workplace tension

News

A raft of new employment law measures were announced by the government in last week’s Queen’s Speech—some of which could prove contentious, lawyers say.

Richard Nicolle, partner in Denton Wilde Sapte’s employment and benefits practice, says the most controversial proposal is the extension of the right for parents to request flexible working arrangements.
Although this extends only to the right to request flexible working—not the right to have it—he says, an extension of the number of employees working on a flexible basis will create controversy. 

“The increase in flexible working will concern some employers and create tensions in the workplace if full-time employees consider they are shouldering an undue burden as a result of others working flexibly. The risk for employers of refusing requests from mothers will be that a refusal may be seen as indirectly discriminatory on account of sex,” he says.

Many employers will also be concerned about the potential costs and administrative time of the requirements under the Pensions Bill for the introduction of compulsory employer pension contributions from 2012.
“All employees will be automatically enrolled to such schemes thus removing the difficulty many employees face when starting a new job. Employees can opt out, but those who do not will be obliged to pay in 4%, which would be matched by 3% contribution from their employer and 1% from the government,” says Nicolle.

A new Employment Bill was also proposed which, Nicolle says, partly represents the government’s response to criticism from employers’ organisations that the plethora of employment regulation has adversely affected business.

“One of the intentions of the Bill is to remove unnecessary employment law, most notably the current statutory dismissal and grievance procedures.”
The most significant omission, he adds, was there being no mention of the long-mooted Single Equality Bill.

Issue: 7297 / Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll