In Ajaz v Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employment judge erred in concluding that rule 52 of the Tribunal Rules 2013 prevented the claimant from raising new whistleblowing detriment claims after earlier detriment claims that were based on the same protected disclosures were dismissed following withdrawal

In Ajaz v Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employment judge erred in concluding that rule 52 of the Tribunal Rules 2013 prevented the claimant from raising new whistleblowing detriment claims after earlier detriment claims that were based on the same protected disclosures were dismissed following withdrawal

Legal innovations

Amended regulations apply to this year’s works council elections taking place from March 1 to May 31, 2022. Pursuant to Section 24 (2) of the Election Regulations of October 8, 2021 (BGBl. I 4640/2021), HR departments are required to provide, in addition to the typical employee data used to draw up the electoral list (surname, first name, date of birth, etc.), details of those employees who are expected to be absent from the workplace after  the election committee letter has been issued and prior to  the election for non-work related reasons (“in particular due to suspension or incapacity for work”). This refers in particular to employees on long-term sick leave and employees on care or parental leave. Furthermore, meetings of the election committee may in future also be held by video or telephone conference subject to are solution by the election committee agreeing to this. However, certain tasks, such as checking lists of candidates or processing absentee ballots must be carried out in person.

The Supreme Court in the UK has held in the case of Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti that, where the real reason for dismissal is a protected disclosure which has been hidden from the person determining the dismissal, by a person in a position of responsibility, the dismissal is automatically unfair, even where the

Workers in the UK are protected from suffering a detriment where they have made a protected disclosure under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996). To be protected under section 47B ERA 1996 the individual must be a worker as defined by s203(3) of that Act.  A recent decision of the Supreme Court considered whether

On 7 October 2019, the EU Council formally adopted the new Whistleblowing Directive that will guarantee whistleblowers EU-wide standards of protection. The Directive obliges both public and private organisations and authorities to set up secure reporting channels, so that whistleblowers can report violations of EU law as safely as possible. Member States have two years

Directors and senior managers and their employers should consider the recent Court of Appeal decision in the Osipov whistleblowing case very carefully. Briefly, by way of scene-setting, Osipov had made a series of protected disclosures and he was ultimately dismissed as CEO of the employer company pursuant to a decision of two non-executive directors (NEDS)

Anonymous reports have been mistrusted for a number of years in France, for historical reasons. While anonymity enables individuals to raise their voice more openly, without being the targets of retaliation measures, it can also drift into slander.

This explains a specificity of French law under which whistleblowers using ethicals lines are strongly encouraged to

More and more organisations are growing their global footprint and need to move their people around the world. In this global environment, it is essential to know, understand and comply with employment and labour laws in place across all of the jurisdictions in which organisations engage people. This will help to protect business from unnecessary