Report this comment to a moderator

Tough on whistleblowers

Anonymous | 10-Oct-2012 2:48 pm "It is important for firms to ensure their members’ agreements are drafted so members below full equity are not deemed to be in a subordinate position, otherwise there is a risk they may be able to establish that they are workers for the purpose of whistleblowing complaints." The above advice is solely to ensure that LLP members are not protected should they blow the whistle. The only logical reason for this advice is so that the LLP can terminate a member who does blow the whistle or treat the less-favourably, otherwise, why would they need to ensure the LLP agreement is drafted in a way so as to avoid the "subordinate" argument in this context? In short, the theme espoused here is that the LLP can and should expel a member and bury a problem if they bring criminal activity/serious health and safety/environmental breaches to the attention of the LLP. That cannot be a sound proposition for a solicitor to advise. I agree that parliament should now act on the issue. I do not for one minute blame Michelle for the problem, I blame the Court of Appeal as this situation cannot have been the intention of parliament.

10-Oct-2012

3:57 pm