HR Focus - February 2012

Welcome to this month’s edition of HR Focus

It may be so cold outside that the whole country seems to be grinding to a halt but there have still been a number of important (or at least interesting) Employment Law Issues arising in these chilly winter months.

As always, if you have any queries or feedback on the newsletter or questions for our Q&A section, please contact askemployment@weightmans.com or ring Laura Kearsley, Editor on 0121 200 3480.

In this month’s edition:

Large Awards: the Shape of Things to Come

In an article originally published in Primary Care Today, Richard Leslie, a Partner in the Liverpool office, looks at the recent case of Dr Michalak, who was awarded £4.5m in compensation for sex discrimination, and asks whether large awards such as these are here to stay.

Conditional Resignations

Michael Berriman, a Partner in the London office, looks at the recent case of Chelmsford College Corporation v Mrs B Teal and explains why an employer’s actions following an employee’s resignation are of the utmost importance.

New Unfair Dismissal Ruling

Georgina Porter, Associate in the Birmingham office, takes a look at the recent EAT case of UPS Ltd v S Harrison, which examined how a Tribunal should determine the reason for a dismissal.

Ten Things You Should Never Say in an Interview

This month, in an article originally published on the website Real Business, Laura Kearsley, an Associate in the Leicester Office, gives employers invaluable advice on how to conduct themselves during interviews.

Q & A

In this issue Victoria Duddles, Associate in the Birmingham office, considers a situation where a resigning employee takes sickness absence during their notice period. 

Finally, a correction:

In our last HR Focus newsletter there was an unfortunate error in the article on Government Consultation by Emlyn Williams. One of our eagle-eyed readers spotted that in the penultimate paragraph it stated that “the qualifying service required to claim unfair dismissal will be reduced from two years to one year at the start of April”. As I am sure you are all aware, that passage should have stated that the length of service requirement would be increased from one year to two.

I hope you all spotted that error and weren’t too confused!

This update does not attempt to provide a full analysis of those matters with which it deals and is provided for general information purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice and should not be treated as a substitute for legal advice. Weightmans LLP accepts no responsibility for any loss that may arise from reliance on the information in this update. The copyright in this update is owned by Weightmans.