Archive for the ‘Confidentiality’ Category
By Sarah - Wednesday, March 26th, 2008
I had a case recently where the employer was asking the employee to disclose correspondence between her and the union rep. My first thought was one of horror and that this must be covered by legal privilege. I was wrong and reminded myself of an old case New Victoria Hospital and Ryan from 1993. This is not new law but saves as an important reminder to employers out there who use the services of non-solicitors to obtain legal advice.
In the case Mrs Ryan sought disclosure of correspondence between her employer and a firm of personnel consultants containing confidential legal advice concerning her dismissal and discipline. The EAT held that this was not covered by legal professional privilege as this was restricted to advice between a solicitor or barrister and their client and could not extend to cover personnel consultants.
Thinking it through this case can have quite horrific consequences for employers using the services of personnel consultants who are not solicitors in obtaining employment law advice. I think about the phone calls from employers saying I want to get rid of X what are my options and if this was disclosed in a Tribunal. Of course my conversations with clients are covered by legal privilege, as are those of all my colleagues at PJH Law. The same cannot be said for all those who offer employment law services, as their advice is often given by non-solicitors and employers should stop and think about the consequences of them giving instructions or seeking advice when the contents are not protected.
Now there’s a reason if ever I heard one to seek advice from employment law specialists who are solicitors just like PJH Law rather than other employment law service providers. That is not to mention the personal service and commercial advice etc etc etc you get with us!
Posted in Confidentiality, Employment Tribunal Procedure | 2 comments »
Similar Posts:
By Philip - Friday, June 15th, 2007
It’s a pity the French don’t have a word for resume, to misquote George Bush…….
Two cases about cvs caught my eye. In the first a Solicitor was struck off the roll for having a dishonest cv, in the second an extremely senior hotel manager was not promoted when inaccuracies in his cv (or resume for American readers) came to light.
Read about the second case here.
We try to keep things simple here and live by some homespun values, one of which is honesty is the best policy. These cases illustrate that whilst dishonesty may enable you to achieve some short term advantage, it will catch you out in the end.
Posted in Confidentiality | 6 comments »
Similar Posts:
By Liam - Wednesday, April 18th, 2007
A decision by the European Court of Justice in Copeland v UK earlier this month confirms that employers can not behave like the Spooks on the BBC TV show. Bugging offices, monitoring offices and eavesdropping on phone lines without warning is a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case highlights the importance of Internet and E-mail Acceptable Use Policies (AUPs) which inform employees that their internet, e-mail and telephone use may be monitored. A lot of employers will also choose not to allow personal use of its resources at all to eliminate any privacy issues.
Posted in Confidentiality | 1 comment »
Similar Posts:
By Philip - Monday, November 27th, 2006
Ignorance and prevarication can be costly! The Court of Appeal have recently had to wrestle with the thorny issue of confidentiality. An employee with an express term of confidentiality in his contract left one employer to go to work for another employer, a competitor. The former employer’s Solicitors wrote to the new employer requesting an undertaking from the new employer to the effect that the new employer would not do anything to encourage the employee to breach the confidentiality clause. The new employer ignored the first letter and said that it was investigating the matter, in reply to a second letter. The old employer applied for an injunction, the undertakings were then given and the Court of Appeal held that the new employer was responsible for all the legal costs incurred by the old employer in applying for an injunction.
Posted in Confidentiality | No comments »
Similar Posts:
