Freedom of choice: EAT confirms selection of companion does not need to be reasonable
In July 2013, the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) held that an employee’s choice of companion for a disciplinary or grievance hearing does not need to be ‘reasonable’ but that compensation for a breach of the right was likely to be low.
That decision has now been re-confirmed in Roberts v GB Oils Ltd, even though the EAT had some concerns about the problems that the decision could cause for employers.
The employee was invited to a disciplinary hearing following allegations of misconduct. He asked to be accompanied to the hearing by a lay trade union official. The employer refused to allow the employee to be accompanied by his preferred companion (for reasons that are not set out in the judgment) but allowed him to be represented by another more senior trade union official. The employee complained that his right to be accompanied by his chosen companion had been breached…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Hogan Lovells briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Hogan Lovells
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Hogan Lovells
The decision of the US Court of Appeals has raised questions about how issuers should present their disclosures on conflict minerals under Exchange Act Rule 13p-1 and Form SD.
An interesting judgment was delivered by the Honourable J Majiki on 19 November 2013 in the Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth.
Analysis from The Lawyer
As international firms question their future in these small, closely linked markets, local lawyers too are eyeing the business environment with caution
Beyond the headline infrastructure projects, UK construction work is still recovering from the clobbering it took during the slump