Yudu - Lawyer Monthly October 2013

Specialist Advocate

OCTOBER 2013

Employment Law Edward Legard

Employment Law is a fast-paced and ever-changing landscape. With numerous regulatory changes having been introduced over the last couple of years, we speak to Edward Legard, head of the employment team at Dere Street Barristers, about his work as a barrister within this practice area and how he handles the challenges that so many changes throw up.

Please tell us a little about yourself and your professional background.

I have been a Barrister for 17 years, an employment specialist for around 12 of those years and a Mediator since 1999. Initially centred on the North East, my practice now covers the length and breadth of the British Isles (including Scotland). I cover all major aspects of employment and equality law and my caseload comprises a broadly even split of Claimant and Respondent work.

I have a strong appellate

practice and appear regularly before the Court of Appeal and EAT. Employment Judge.

I also sit as a part-time

Our employment team is one of the largest in the North East. We can cover a broad spectrum of employment and equality work at all levels. Whether a relatively straightforward unfair dismissal dispute or a high value, complex discrimination case, there is an individual within the team with the knowledge, experience and ability to meet the challenge.

areas of Practice We represent employees and employers; from school cleaners and Trade Unions to multinational Plcs, local authorities and NHS trusts. Members of the team lecture extensively and we are also able to provide in-house training.

What are the main challenges raised when dealing with cases within the employment sector?

One of the key challenges for employment specialists is to remain one step ahead of legislative change. As practitioners, we have to be both dynamic and flexible. Employment law and procedure is in a constant state of flux,

www.lawyer-monthly.com

requiring regular updating on recently published cases or the scrutinising of new legislation. As a team we feed off one another and keep ourselves at the cutting edge of employment law through regular team briefings and the sharing of experience.

A practice in employment law will expose the practitioner to one of the most diverse areas of law and practice. One day you could be defending a nursing home and the next you might be acting for a union on behalf of a large number of employees engaged in industrial action.

In recent years I have defended a sex

discrimination complaint where the allegation was one of rape; represented peripatetic oil workers from Dubai and appeared on behalf of Leeds United (sadly, in my professional, not footballing, capacity)! Each day brings with it a fresh challenge but the ‘job’ remains rewarding and full of interest.

What are the main differences between public and private companies when it comes to the cases you deal with?

I believe most practitioners would say that, on the whole, it is easier to deal with (and for or against) private companies. When dealing with private companies one tends to encounter greater flexibility. Personal accountability can often be harder to track down in cases concerning public companies (and particularly public authorities) and that is sometimes combined with relatively high levels of bureaucracy. For example, this may produce unnecessary delay and frustration when it comes to obtaining authorisation in order to settle a case.

On the other hand, in most (but by no means all) cases, HR practices are often more robust and

there is greater pay transparency within public companies.

Have there been any legislative changes in this area in your jurisdiction recently? do you see the need for any?

The employment jurisdiction is an ever-changing landscape as successive governments try and outdo their predecessor in effecting that change. Over recent years (and indeed months) there have been a number of well-publicised changes within the employment sphere, some procedural and some substantive. By way of example, new tribunal rules of procedure have been introduced and fees are now chargeable. The latter is perhaps the most significant change of all and, in my view and despite the remission system, will have a profound impact upon the ability of the individual to access the law in order to protect his or her employment rights.

The introduction of a ‘public interest’ test for whistle-blowing cases is a long overdue but welcome move.

I see the need for further

simplification in TUPE law; further clarification on the circumstances in which sick employees can claim unused holiday pay and an extension to the jurisdiction of Tribunals to enable them to deal with contract claims that are not dependent upon termination of employment. LM