header-logo header-logo

THIN ICE

09 August 2007
Issue: 7285 / Categories: Legal News , Tribunals , Regulatory , Employment
printer mail-detail

In brief

A penalty for failing to comply with the Information and Consultation of Employee Regulations 2004 (ICE regulations) has for the first time been awarded by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). In Amicus v Macmillan Publishers Ltd the EAT concluded that Macmillan’s failure to hold a ballot breached the ICE regulations, which require larger employers to ensure that employees are informed and consulted. The EAT concluded that “it must have been plain, reading the legislation, that the relevant provisions were being ignored at almost every stage”. No adequate reasons were given for failing to comply with the obligations and a £55,000 penalty was imposed.

Issue: 7285 / Categories: Legal News , Tribunals , Regulatory , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel—James McSweeney

Quinn Emanuel—James McSweeney

London promotion underscores firm’s investment in white collar and investigations

Ward Hadaway—Louise Miller

Ward Hadaway—Louise Miller

Private client team strengthened by partner appointment

NLJ Career Profile: Kate Gaskell, Flex Legal

NLJ Career Profile: Kate Gaskell, Flex Legal

Kate Gaskell, CEO of Flex Legal, reflects on chasing her childhood dreams underscores the importance of welcoming those from all backgrounds into the profession

NEWS
Overcrowded prisons, mental health hospitals and immigration centres are failing to meet international and domestic human rights standards, the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) has warned
Two speedier and more streamlined qualification routes have been launched for probate and conveyancing professionals
Workplace stress was a contributing factor in almost one in eight cases before the employment tribunal last year, indicating its endemic grip on the UK workplace
In Ward v Rai, the High Court reaffirmed that imprecise points of dispute can and will be struck out. Writing in NLJ this week, Amy Dunkley of Bolt Burdon Kemp reports on the decision and its implications for practitioners
Could the Supreme Court’s ruling in R v Hayes; R v Palombo unintentionally unsettle future complex fraud trials? Maia Cohen-Lask of Corker Binning explores the question in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll