INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - Hong Leong saved by Najib connection?

Hong Leong saved by Najib connection?

K Pragalath

 | January 10, 2014

Nube says the authorities have not acted against the bank despite complaints about discrimination.

KUALA LUMPUR: The National Union of Bank Employees (Nube) today accused Hong Leong Bank Berhad (HLB) of marginalising employees who are appealing against transfers orders.

Its secretary general, J Solomon, said the union had complained to various authorities to no avail.

He speculated that the bank was being let off the hook because one of its directors is Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak’s brother.

“How is it that HLB is exempted from the law?” he said. “Is it because Nazim Razak is a member of the board of directors?”

HLB merged with EON Bank in 2011. As part of the restructuring, HLB gave transfer orders to some employees, but a number of them refused to budge while waiting for replies to their appeals.

Among their complaints was that their salaries would not cover the higher living costs they would incur in the towns they were assigned to.

Nube said the defiant employees were now subject to discriminatory actions by the bank. For example, according to Nube assistant secretary general A Karuna, they are not allowed access to the toilets and the Muslims among them are allegedly barred from the suraus.

Karuna also said they had not been paid their December salaries and contractual bonuses.

She questioned the lack of action from the Ministry of Human Resources against the bank.

“The role of the government is to assist the people,” she said. “We informed the Industrial Relations Department on Oct 28, but there has been no action. The ministry is aware of the issue, but it has claimed that it has no power to do anything.”

Solomon noted that six Pakatan MPs raised the issue during the parliament session on Dec 2, “but Richard Riot told them the issue is complex and he would give a written reply.” Riot is the Minister of Human Resources.

Also on Dec 2, Minister in Prime Minister’s Department Jamil Khir Baharom questioned why Malay Muslim NGOs that were championing the Allah issue were not at the forefront to champion the Muslim employees’ rights.

In relation to this, Selangor Perkasa invited Nube for a briefing yesterday.

Nube protest

Nube has organised a mini protest to fight for the affected employees and it took off on Dec 18. Union members from all over Malaysia used two days of their annual leave to come to Kuala Lumpur to protest outside the HLB premises in Jalan Perak.

The protest is scheduled to continue until the bank restores what Nube says are the employees’ rights and reinstates their colleagues who have been sacked for defying the transfer orders.

FMT wrote a letter to HLB’s Corporate Affairs Department this morning for a response from the bank. No reply had been received when this report was uploaded.

However the bank issued a statement yesterday stating that the allegation that it disallowed some Nube members to pray at the Kelantan and Kuantan branches’ prayer room (or surau) was a gross distortion of the facts.

“Hong Leong Bank categorically affirms that it is respectful of all religious practices. The bank respects the religious beliefs of all its employees and is supportive of their freedom to practice their faith,” it had said.

Source: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com

DISMISSAL - Delivery man who avoided work by carving out sleeping space in office ceiling wins case for unfair dismissal

Delivery man who avoided work by carving out sleeping space in office ceiling wins case for unfair dismissal

• - Francis Hudson worked at Japanese Spares Ltd in New Zealand
• - He was sacked after working there for 19 months
• - Also accused of sleeping in car park, hiding in building during work hours and causing
    damage by unlicensed use of a forklift
• 
  

By NICK ENOCH

PUBLISHED: 21:08 GMT, 2 January 2014 | UPDATED: 08:23 GMT, 3 January 2014

Francis Hudson went to the Employment Relations Authority after he was sacked by Auckland-based firm Japanese Spares Ltd last January

A man accused of avoiding his work duties by carving out a sleeping space in an office ceiling has won his case for unjustified dismissal.

Francis Hudson went to the Employment Relations Authority after he was sacked by Auckland-based firm Japanese Spares Ltd last January.

According to his employers, the delivery worker and storeman also slept in the car park, hid in the building during work hours, caused damage to parts by driving a forklift without a licence and refused to follow management instructions.

Mr Hudson, who had worked at JSL for 19 months, claimed he had a personal grievance and was unjustifiably dismissed by the company.

However, this was rejected by JSL, which presented evidence to the Authority regarding his cunning means of job shirking, the New Zealand Herald reported.

Shameem Khan, the former manager of Mr Hudson, told the Authority that, on several occasions, he had discovered him asleep in a ceiling cavity on the third floor.

Mr Khan said this constituted a safety hazard since it caused the ceiling to collapse inwards, affecting its structural integrity.

He added that JSL was given an estimate of $37,000 (£18,500) to repair the ceiling - although it wasn't known whether Mr Hudson caused all the damage.

JSL was ordered to pay Mr Hudson $1,795 (£900) in lost wages and compensation.

Speaking for the Authority, Kenneth Anderson said that because JSL never told Mr Hudson of their concerns or indicated that his job was at risk, Mr Hudson's dismissal was 'procedurally and possibly substantively unjustified'.

Mr Anderson said: 'Mr Hudson has been shown to be a person that was difficult to keep on the job and he was in the habit of hiding away, quite regularly it seems to avoid having to carry out some of the duties he was employed for."

An $8,000 (£4,000) compensation claim made by Mr Hudson was also rejected.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - 10 cases to watch out for in 2008

10 cases to watch out for in 2008

On 7 Jan 2008 in Case law

Did you spend the Christmas break fretting about what employment law cases are coming up in the next 12 months? Help is at hand, with XpertHR’s round up of 10 significant decisions expected in 2008.

• Levenes Solicitors v DalleyThe Court of Appeal is considering this common issue for employers: is it unfair for an employer to dismiss an employee for a disciplinary offence, where other employees have not been dismissed for the same offence in the past? The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the dismissal was fair in this case. Ms Dalley, a solicitor, was dismissed mainly for missing a deadline to issue proceedings in a case. It emerged that other solicitors had not been dismissed for that reason in the past.
• Fairbrother v Abbey plcAnother significant case on dismissal is scheduled to go before the Court of Appeal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal had held that, in the context of a constructive dismissal claim, the question that should be asked is whether or not the employer’s actions during the grievance procedure fell within the range of reasonable responses.
• Corr v IBC VehiclesEmployment-related decisions from the House of Lords are few and far between, so this one is worth looking out for. It is an appeal against the Court of Appeal’s ruling that the widow of a man who committed suicide when severely depressed as a result of injuries sustained in a workplace accident was entitled to recover damages under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976.
• McDougall v Richmond Adult Community CollegeThe Employment Appeal Tribunal held that, in determining whether a condition is likely to recur for the purposes of determining if it is long term, it is relevant to consider matters occurring up to the date of the hearing, not just the claimant’s condition at the time the tort was committed. The case now proceeds to the Court of Appeal.
• Oyarce v Cheshire County CouncilIn this controversial decision, the Employment Appeal Tribunal found with “some degree of hesitation and disquiet” that the reversal of the burden of proof does not apply in race victimisation cases. This leads to an unsatisfactory situation where the test in race victimisation is different to the other strands of discrimination. The Court of Appeal will attempt to sort out the mess.
• Attridge Law and another v Coleman A reference to the European Court of Justice that could have a substantial impact on disability discrimination legislation across Europe. Ms Coleman claims that she was discriminated against contrary to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 because she is the primary carer for her disabled son. This raises the question of whether or not the Framework Employment Directive covers discrimination against an employee on the ground of their association with a disabled person. Given that the right to request flexible working was extended to carers in April 2007, this is an important case from a UK perspective.
• James v London Borough of GreenwichWith no sign of European-level agreement on giving agency workers clear employment rights, it looks like the strand of cases on when a contract of employment can be implied between a temp and an employer is here to stay. The principles are so confused that all tribunal cases about the status of agency workers have been halted pending the outcome of this decision, in the hope that the Court of Appeal can provide some clear guidance.
• Heyday (R v The Incorporated Trustees of the National Council on Ageing)A decision in this high-profile case is not expected until 2009, but there may be an Advocate-General opinion in 2008. Heyday believes that the inclusion of the default retirement age, which allows employers to retire individuals at 65 or over, in the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 makes them incompatible with the Framework Directive.
• Johns v Solent SD LtdThe case that led to all claims of age discrimination relating to default retirement under the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 being stayed until the outcome of Heyday’s challenge to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Employment Appeal Tribunal admonished the employment tribunal for attempting to second-guess the ECJ and allowed cases like those of Mrs Johns to be put on hold. However, leave was given to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
• HM Revenue and Customs v Stringer and others (previously known as Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Ainsworth and others)
  The European Court of Justice is expected to give its ruling in 2008. It is considering whether or not workers on long-term sick leave who have exhausted their occupational sick pay entitlement are entitled to take four weeks’ paid holiday under working time legislation.

Stephen Simpson, employment law editor, XpertHR

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - Cases to watch out for in 2007

Cases to watch out for in 2007

On 16 Jan 2007 in Case law, Employment law

The 2006 age regulations are perhaps the most significant new employment rules in recent years and, in terms of case predictions for 2007, the bookies have almost certainly stopped taking bets. Cases challenging certain aspects of the age regulations seem almost certain to appear.

However, age is not the only employment law issue facing business. This year, the courts are going to be busy on a number of fronts, with critical issues from sex discrimination to sick pay set to surface. All have important ramifications for business. Here are some of the key cases to watch during the year ahead.

Burden of proof in discrimination casesMadarassy v Nomura

The impending Court of Appeal decision in what is one of the longest running cases of alleged sexism in the city is expected early in 2007. The ruling will provide welcome clarity around the degree of adverse treatment an employee is required to establish, to shift the burden of proof on to the employer.

Disability discrimination ‘by association’Coleman v Attridge Law

This case concerns a claim by Miss Coleman that she was discriminated against due to her son’s disability – a claim of “discrimination by association”. The current rules are not clear,so the question of whether discrimination by association with a disabled person is prohibited by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995has been referred to the European Court ofJustice (ECJ).

A challenge to the default retirement ageHeyday v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

Heyday is seeking a judicial review of the new age regulations at the High Court, claiming that they do not fully implement the European Directive. Heyday is challenging in three specific areas: the default retirement age of65 that employers can refuse to employ over 65s and that employers are not required to give a reason for refusing to allow an employee to work beyond 65. A ruling is expected inlate 2007.

The decision is likely to impact on the development of age discrimination legislation across Europe, giving guidance on how far countries can include exemptions and justify derogations from the directive in national legislation.

Sick leave and accruing annual leave HM Revenue & Customs v Stringer & others

This case deals with whether workers on long-term sick leave can designate part of their sick leave as accrued annual leave. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that annual leave does accrue whether or not the worker is working. This decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal, and has now been referred to the ECJ. Employers should continue to pay accrued holiday to those on long-term sick leave until a decision has been reached.

Sick pay and disabilityO’Hanlon v Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs

Earlier cases ruled that where a person is absent for a disability-related reason, the employer may be obliged to make adjustments to its sick pay policy to keep them on full pay despite any contractual sick pay entitlement having been exhausted. However, the EAT confirmed in this case (2006) that an employer would only rarely be obliged to give more sick pay to a disabled person. This came as a relief to employers, but the case has been sent to the Court of Appeal, so the situation could yet change. The hearing is planned for March.

Age regulations

The question of cost to the employer as justification for discrimination may get another airing in the courts in the context of age discrimination, as the cost of providing some benefits such as private health insurance and pension benefits to the over 60s can be prohibitive.

Statutory procedures

The government plans to carry out a ‘root and branch’ review of the statutory procedures in the autumn. Given the string of cases in 2006 on the interpretation of the statutory disciplinary and grievance procedures, it will be interesting to see how this develops.

Case predictions by Julian Hemming, head of employment, pensions and incentives, Osborne Clarke 

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - Cases to watch in 2011

Cases to watch in 2011

By Philip Minnis on 14 Mar 2011 in Discipline, Discipline and grievances, Employee relations, Employment law,Employment Law Features, Employment Tribunals, Equality & diversity, Human rights, Leave, Maternity, Pay & benefits, Retirement, Sex discrimination, Unfair dismissal, Working time regulations

This year brings a number of cases which could have a significant bearing on the employment law landscape. Here is a brief roundup of cases to watch out for in 2011.

When are employees entitled to legal representation in disciplinary proceedings?

The Employment Relations Act 1999 provides that employees and workers are entitled to be accompanied only by a trade union representative or a work colleague at internal disciplinary hearings. However, in specific instances, employees could be entitled to legal representation. In R (on the application of G) v Governors of X School and Y City Council, the Court of Appeal found that a teacher was entitled to legal representation by virtue of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to a fair trial) during disciplinary proceedings for alleged sexual misconduct with a student. It decided that this was appropriate because of the gravity of the allegations in the case and the potential repercussions of an unfavourable outcome, which could mean an end to the teacher’s career. The case is now set to be considered by the Supreme Court in April.

Can cost justify a compulsory retirement age?

The abolition of the default retirement age is set for 6 April 2011 and the trepidation among employers is almost tangible. Subject to transitional provisions (which will allow some retirements to continue if notice has been given before 6 April 2011), employers will not be able safely to retire employees at any age without triggering discrimination unless they can justify it as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The German case ofFuchs v Land Hessen has been referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and it is hoped that this will provide some much needed guidance on the issue of justification and in particular whether or not a business which needs to retire employees to save costs can justifiably do so.

Does inflation of redundancy scoring for a woman on maternity leave discriminate against men?

In De Belin v Eversheds, the tribunal found that the employer discriminated against Mr de Belin on grounds of his sex after automatically inflating the redundancy scoring of a female colleague on maternity leave and selecting him for redundancy as a consequence. The case was concerned with the special treatment afforded to women in connection with pregnancy. The case was appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and a judgment is due shortly.

Does the right to statutory paid annual leave expire at the end of the leave year?

In Pereda v Madrid Movilidad SA in 2009, the ECJ found that under the Working Time Directive, a worker on long-term sick leave should be allowed to carry forward statutory paid leave to the following leave year. Despite this being applied by the employment tribunal in Shah v First West Yorkshire Ltd, the ECJ’s decision is actually inconsistent with the UK’s Working Time Regulations 1998, which provide that untaken leave does not carry over to the following year. In the pending case of KHS AG v Schulte, the ECJ is due to address the specific question of whether or not our national legislation is actually lawful in providing that statutory paid annual leave expires at the end of a leave year. The decision, if adverse, could seriously affect the way that UK employers manage leave and the ensuing cost burden placed upon them. Watch this space!

Philip Minnis, solicitor, Rosenblatt Solicitors

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - Case of the week: Mezey v South West London and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust

Case of the week: Mezey v South West London and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust

On 11 May 2010 in Discipline, Discipline and grievances, Employment law, Employment Tribunals

Facts

Dr Mezey was employed by South West London and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust as a consultant forensic psychiatrist at Springfield Hospital. During a voluntary stay in the hospital’s secure mental health unit, one of her patients, JB, absconded and fatally stabbed a man. The trust set up an enquiry into Mezey’s care of JB.

At the time, the relevant procedure was “disciplinary procedures for hospital… staff HC(90)9″ (HC) (which included separate procedures relating to conduct or competence). This was superseded by “maintaining high professional standards in the modern NHS” (MHPS) (which also contained distinct parts relating to conduct and capability).

Both HC and MHPS were contractual procedures. HC provided that if there was a finding of fault by an investigatory panel, the trust could decide what disciplinary action it was appropriate to take. Under MHPS, the decision to investigate could only be taken after consultation with a national body, the National Clinical Assessment Authority (NCAA), and for the capability procedure to be invoked, the practitioner must be shown to have lacked knowledge or ability, or to have rendered consistently poor performance.

Acting under HC, the trust convened an investigatory panel to conduct an inquiry into Mezey’s care of JB.

The panel reported in March 2008 and its principal conclusions were that Mezey’s alleged failings, including a decision to grant JB unescorted leave without assessing him, did not amount to serious professional incompetence. While Mezey was at fault in making a one-off mistake in clinical judgement, it was in accordance with a range of opinion that might be held by competent professionals in the field.

Notwithstanding these findings, the trust attempted to set up a disciplinary hearing under MHPS. Mezey sought an injunction prohibiting the trust from holding a disciplinary hearing.

Decision

The High Court granted an injunction restraining the trust from holding disciplinary proceedings. None of the sanctions contemplated by MHPS were appropriate, given the panel’s report, which generally endorsed Mezey’s competence.

Although, in principle, there might be an implied right to issue a reprimand, this did not apply in this case, as the fundamental competence of the employee was not an issue. The trust appealed.

The Court of Appeal agreed the High Court was right to grant an injunction preventing the disciplinary hearing from proceeding. To do so would be a breach of contract. The MHPS capability procedure applied where the doctor’s capability to practice was in question. This could not be said of Mezey, based on the panel’s report. And before the capability procedure could be invoked, the NCAA had to be consulted – but no such consultation had taken place.

Implications

In the past, all attempts to seek an injunction in relation to the breach of a contractual disciplinary procedure have failed. An employee’s remedy will usually be limited to loss of earnings for the period of time it would have taken to operate the procedure correctly.

The effect of the decision in this case was to permanently prevent the trust taking disciplinary action against Mezey in connection with the events in question. This case highlights the importance of following contractual procedures as injunctive relief may be open to the employee if they are breached.

The case is more likely to affect public sector employers as complex contractual disciplinary procedures are more common in the public sector. But private sector employers may also have contractual disciplinary procedures.

It is also more likely to have an impact on sectors and roles where a disciplinary sanction has such severe consequences for a career that damages alone would be unlikely to remedy the situation.

Helen Hall, employment partner, DLA Piper

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - Case of the week: Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust v Westwood

Case of the week: Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust v Westwood

By Personnel Today on 22 Apr 2010 in Employment law, Employment Tribunals, Unfair dismissal

Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust v Westwood

Facts

The claimant, A Westwood, was a staff nurse at Birmingham City Hospital’s accident and emergency (A&E) department. During a night shift, she helped another nurse remove an intoxicated patient who had been discharged, but refused to leave. The patient was left by the two nurses outside A&E, lying on a trolley. Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust invoked the disciplinary policy, and dismissed the employee for gross misconduct.

The trust had focused on the fact she had professional responsibilities and that she had breached her Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) code. The trust’s disciplinary code stipulated that failure to adhere to the employee’s professional code of conduct amounted to gross misconduct. Westwood issued a claim for unfair dismissal.

Decision

The employment tribunal found the employee’s failure of professional judgement had not amounted to gross misconduct, and that her dismissal for that conduct had been unfair. It also found the investigation carried out by the trust had been defective, and the conduct of the disciplinary hearing “seriously deficient”. The tribunal held that gross misconduct must comprise either “deliberate wrongdoing” or amount to “gross negligence”, and that no reasonable panel could have characterised what Westwood did as either.

The tribunal then considered the question of contributory fault, and decided that while it would have been minded to make a reduction of 20% on account of the claimant’s contribution to her dismissal, it would make no reduction given the trust’s “ineptitude”.

The trust appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), arguing that the tribunal had effectively substituted their own view of the evidence and the seriousness of the conduct for that of the trust’s disciplinary panel. The trust argued it was entitled to regard failure to adhere to the NMC code as gross misconduct.

The EAT rejected this appeal, and held the question of what amounts to “gross misconduct” is a mixed question of law and fact.

The tribunal was correct to direct itself that gross misconduct involves either deliberate wrongdoing or gross negligence. The tribunal should then consider both the character of the conduct, and whether it was reasonable for the employer to regard it as gross misconduct on the facts of the case.

The character of the misconduct should not be determined solely by the employer’s own analysis and whether it was reasonable for the employer to believe that the employee had committed such misconduct. In this case, therefore, the employee’s breach of the NMC code did not necessarily amount to gross misconduct simply because the employer’s disciplinary code stipulated that it would. It was open for the tribunal to consider the conduct that had breached the code, and find that it could not reasonably be characterised as deliberate wrongdoing or gross negligence.

The EAT also considered contributory fault, and held that it is only the claimant’s conduct that should be considered by the tribunal when it decides whether to make a reduction to compensation in respect of contributory fault.

The tribunal had therefore erred in its approach in considering the trust’s conduct. The appeal in relation to the issue of contributory fault was therefore allowed and remitted for re-hearing before the tribunal.

Implications

Employers should take care when labelling certain types of behaviour as gross misconduct in their procedures and policies. There is the need to carefully consider why certain actions are considered to be gross misconduct or negligence, as opposed to just misconduct. Therefore in a disciplinary hearing, even where there is a clear breach of disciplinary policy, the employer must still ask itself whether the conduct involves either deliberate wrongdoing or gross negligence. Employers need to treat their disciplinary policy as guidelines, and consider each situation on its facts.

Another criticism made of the trust by the tribunal was its failure to properly explain the reasons behind its decision to dismiss the claimant. It is good practice, in any event, for employers to set out clearly in writing the reasons behind the decision to dismiss an employee.

Vanessa Hempstead, solicitor, Thomas Eggar

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - Case of the week: Lim v Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust

Case of the week: Lim v Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust

By Guy Lamb on 22 Nov 2011 in Discipline and grievances, Employment law

Lim v Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust

FACTS

Dr Lim was a consultant anaesthetist at the Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust. Bullying complaints were made against him in January 2007 and a formal investigation was carried out. Dr Lim largely admitted to the allegations and formal disciplinary action was recommended in May 2007.

Shortly after this, concerns over his professional capability were raised. These overshadowed the misconduct allegations, which were held open while malpractice investigations were concluded.

In November 2007, the death of one of Dr Lim’s patients, P, was treated as a “serious untoward incident”. Dr Lim was excluded from duty in December 2007 and four separate reports over the next year were highly critical of him. The situation was referred to the police and the General Medical Council, which formally suspended Dr Lim in November 2008. In September 2009, a report concerning 512 of Dr Lim’s other patients identified wide-ranging and deep-seated failings of a fundamental nature.

Although the trust initially referred Dr Lim’s case to the National Clinical Assessment Service (NCAS) to assess whether or not his actions had any realistic chance of success, the situation was so serious following the September 2009 report that no NCAS assessment could have avoided the need for a formal hearing. Dr Lim was invited to a hearing in January 2010 to discuss both his capability and the misconduct concerns dating back to 2006.

Dr Lim sought an injunction, claiming that:

• the NHS’s Maintaining High Professional Standards (MHPS) guidance required an NCAS assessment before holding any capability hearing; and
• allowing the trust to pursue the allegations of misconduct four years later was unfair.

DECISION

The High Court granted Dr Lim’s injunction. Various parts of the MHPS were contradictory, so precedence was given to the most recently introduced section, which required an NCAS assessment to be completed before any capability hearing.

The judge allowed the trust to pursue the misconduct allegations. Employers are under an implied obligation to conduct disciplinaries without delay but, in the unusual circumstances of this case, the trust had investigated without undue delay. Dr Lim had admitted most of the misconduct allegations and had been told throughout that they were still being pursued. Other very serious concerns about his fundamental capability had supervened and rendered it impossible for the trust to proceed with the disciplinary hearing until these had been resolved.

IMPLICATIONS

This judgment helps employers where circumstances outside of their control result in significant delays to disciplinary processes, and reminds us that a delay will not automatically lead to a finding of unfair dismissal. In practice, though, the implied duty to conduct disciplinaries without delay stands in most cases; only the very unusual facts of this case successfully kept Dr Lim’s misconduct “alive” for four years.

Written policies must be clear and consistent to avoid the uncertainty faced by the trust. Drafters should also avoid lengthy and prescriptive policies that leave employers with their hands tied. The MHPS process was onerous and ultimately the trust was bound by it.

The key message when drafting disciplinary and grievance policies is that “less is more”. Policies should not be contractual and should give employers as much flexibility as possible to avoid inadvertent breaches of contract.

Guy Lamb, partner, DLA Piper