BLUE
Profile banner
DN
Darren Newman
@daznewman.bsky.social
Employment Law trainer, writer, consultant, anorak
615 followers869 following197 posts
DNdaznewman.bsky.social

*renumbering Doh!

0
DNdaznewman.bsky.social

I think thereā€™s room for different views- and eventually for litigation

1
DNdaznewman.bsky.social

You just want the Moon on a stick!

1
DNdaznewman.bsky.social

I agree in general. But I think the very dense provisions on ZHC hide the fact that all of the actual detail is left to Regulation. You canā€™t tell what the new right is based on the Bill alone.

1
DNdaznewman.bsky.social

I think the employers lobby would absolutely go to the mattresses over the state actually preventing them doing what they felt needed to be done rather than let the courts deal with it afterwards. I remember the row over the initial directive on information and consultation. Itā€™s a red line for them

1
DNdaznewman.bsky.social

Well if they meet the 20 person threshold it will probably count as a collective redundancy so there is a requirement to consult there

1
DNdaznewman.bsky.social

I donā€™t think that is much scope really. The exception strikes me as narrow. And note in the Next Steps document that the government will consider introducing interim relief.

1
DNdaznewman.bsky.social

Indeed. But means lots of large employers will have to be very careful that unconnected redundancies across the country donā€™t result in them hitting the threshold

0
DNdaznewman.bsky.social

Even stronger than I first thought. No exception for not replacing the employee- unfair if reason is either because of refusal or the employee will be replaced on lesser terms

1
DNdaznewman.bsky.social

Easier

1
Profile banner
DN
Darren Newman
@daznewman.bsky.social
Employment Law trainer, writer, consultant, anorak
615 followers869 following197 posts