The five hot topics in employment law in 2014
Employers should look out for the following changes in 2014: TUPE revamp; ACAS pre-claim conciliation; financial penalties for employers in tribunal claims; right to request flexible working extended to all employees; and pensions auto-enrolment.
Proposed changes to TUPE came into force on 31 January. The majority of the amendments apply to transfers on or after that date and are intended to make life easier for service providers and transferees in many circumstances.
The changes include enabling the transferee (in certain circumstances) to consult with the transferring employees on collective redundancies prior to the transfer. Changes to terms and conditions of employment should be easier, with changes only prohibited where the reason for the change is the transfer itself…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Kemp Little briefing.
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 Kemp Little
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Kemp Little
Despite the efforts of The Apprentice candidates, wearable technology is no laughing matter; this £450m industry is becoming increasingly popular, both in and outside the workplace.
Tthe court has held that an exchange of emails between the claimants’ and defendants’ respective solicitors constituted a binding settlement in relation to litigation, and that a formal settlement agreement was not necessary.