header-logo header-logo

03 November 2011
Issue: 7488 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

No to sacking slackers

Lawyers express dismay at unfair dismissal law plans

Employment lawyers have given short shrift to leaked proposals to scrap unfair dismissal laws.

A report by venture capitalist Adrian Beecroft for Downing Street, leaked to the press last week, proposes replacing unfair dismissal with “compensated no fault dismissal”. Employers would be allowed to sack staff with basic redundancy pay and notice. Beecroft concedes that employers could sack staff because they don’t like them, but this is “a price worth paying”.

However, lawyers warn that this could create a rise in discrimination claims, which have no limit on the amount of compensation claimed.

Bronwyn McKenna, chair of the Employment Lawyers Association (ELA) legislative and policy committee, says: “If the proposals outlined in Beecroft’s leaked report on unfair dismissal were to be adopted, that would arguably lead to a two-tier system of protection in the workplace, ie legal safeguards will apply to employees with a protected characteristic under the Equality Act and not to those who aren’t so covered.”

On whether the UK could lawfully introduce such a proposal, McKenna said unfair dismissal is “a creation of English statute”, therefore there “may not be an insuperable EU hurdle. There may be questions about the UK’s compliance under its international law obligations”.

Linda Farrell, employment partner at Bristows, says: “Until we see more flesh on the proposal, it is difficult to see how it could work. If an employer says to an employee that they are ‘not up to scratch and should think of hanging up their boots’ it would drive a coach and horses through our age discrimination laws if such a comment could never be raised in an employment tribunal.”

Issue: 7488 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

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