Feature


HR & Employment Law


Keeping up with the law


Whatever the size of your business, employers need to keep abreast of changes in employment law. There have been some interesting cases in 2016 that have given clarification on key issues employers may face in the workplace and Louise Brown, employment solicitor at Excello Law, explores these issues and their results.


Using “protected conversations” – how protected are you? Protected conversations were introduced to enable employers to discuss a mutually agreeable termination package with an employee without it being referred to in any future unfair dismissal claim. In the case of Faithorn Farrell Timms Plc v Bailey (June 2016), the claimant brought claims for constructive unfair dismissal and indirect sexual discrimination. One issue before the court was whether such protected conversations could be referred to in the evidence in the tribunal claim. This case demonstrated how carefully such


conversations must be treated, as evidence of these discussions may be admitted for a discrimination claim but remain excluded regarding the unfair dismissal claim. However, the employment appeal tribunal (which


handles appeals against the employment tribunal where a legal mistake may have been made) found the current legislation covered not only the content of protected conversations and later management conversations that referred to the original protected conversations and any offers made, but also the fact that they had occurred. This is potentially a wider safeguard than that offered by the law on ‘without prejudice’ discussions.


44 CHAMBERLINK November 2016


Is it unlawful to ban a female employee from wearing a hijab? It was found in the case of Bougnaoui v Micropole SA (July 2016) that it was unlawful to ban a woman from wearing a hijab. The employee was employed by Micropole SA as a


design engineer and was a practising Muslim. She wore a hijab (headscarf), which covered her head but left her face exposed, at work and when she visited clients.


Banning employees from wearing a hijab was found to be unlawful


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68