@Wonkypolicywonk @DazNewman I think it is likely a more general reference to all types of family leave; maternity, paternity, adoption, SPL, parental leave - this is commonly used as an umbrella term in HR policy discussions in my experience and it reads that way in the New Deal doc
Thanks to whoever said the below - do invoice me. Grateful to be in the esteemed company of @rosie_kight as a Rising Star in this year's @thelegal500 - well done to the whole #ukemplaw team @Kings_Chambers who all made the rankings - @BillableHour fine paid
Thanks to everyone who attended my webinar on the new EAT Rules / Practice Direction this week - for those who missed it but wanted to attend, it is now uploaded to YouTube below #ukemplaw
https://t.co/5OYw2262KR via @YouTube
In this webinar I will also cover the new 80-page (up from the old 33-page) EAT Practice Direction 2023 which has just landed - I'm going to read it, so you don't have to! Although it does say you MUST read it if you're submitting an appeal, which is a good idea #ukemplaw.
@JasonBraier Spare a thought for EJ Maxwell who would have had to do the usual intros “to my right is Mr Bean, to my left is Mr Bone” - I’d have fallen off my chair.
@JasonBraier@andrewedge11kbw No but I think it might have also pointed out that we equally tend to use the term "default judgment" which, again, does not strictly exist under the ET rules (notwithstanding this I still use both terms because everyone knows what I mean!)
@SeanJonesKC The transcript is great https://t.co/PTTOe1VIZK
JUDGE MORGAN: ...if you want to come into court looking like something out of Harry Potter, you can forget coming into this court ever again. Do I make myself clear?
LORD HARLEY: Your Honour …
JUDGE MORGAN: I am going to rise.
@MikeThomsonFA Feel free to DM me Mike - I found there wasn't much information available but figured it out (the scope for exemption and how much differs depending on whether you have higher rights, and how much advocacy you have done)
@JasonBraier It's clunkily worded, but not necessarily wrong - in context I think "relating to" in para 95 here is referring to the employer's dismissal itself, which is still s103A only, as opposed to things which result in dismissal, which Osipov allows under s47?
@JasonBraier Never seen it and the downloadable form online (updated Nov 2022) remains the old version (https://t.co/fr0unVlFl1) - this must be via the online portal only I think
@JasonBraier @EleenaMisra It’s back up now - had this a couple of times after getting an email alert - just assumed it was the wrong version or something