http://www.pjhlaw.co.uk/blog/third-party-harassment/ Exclusively Employment Law Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:04:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 http://www.pjhlaw.co.uk/blog/third-party-harassment/#comment-35 philip hyland Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:49:20 +0000 http://www.pjhlaw.co.uk/blog/uncategorized/third-party-harassment/#comment-35 Thanks Richard for reading. It's an interesting one, let's see how it pans out.The High Court decision may be rowed in by the C of A, alternatively the Government could amend the definition to be in line. Original post is in Feb under unfair dismissal Thanks Richard for reading. It’s an interesting one, let’s see how it pans out.The High Court decision may be rowed in by the C of A, alternatively the Government could amend the definition to be in line. Original post is in Feb under unfair dismissal

]]> http://www.pjhlaw.co.uk/blog/third-party-harassment/#comment-34 Richard Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:32:01 +0000 http://www.pjhlaw.co.uk/blog/uncategorized/third-party-harassment/#comment-34 I remember the issue, since I commented, but I cannot find the original entry (should be in sex discrimination?). Anyway this still leaves the question raised in MacDonald - why should the employer be liable for the actions of those he cannot control? To reuse my original example, sexual abuse aimed at a particular teacher being shouted through school railings, by children or others. Can't see that this is anything to do with the employer. Perhaps we need to add 'on the premises' to any definition? This would catch abuse of waitresses by customers, with which, I am sure, many employers collude. I remember the issue, since I commented, but I cannot find the original entry (should be in sex discrimination?). Anyway this still leaves the question raised in MacDonald - why should the employer be liable for the actions of those he cannot control? To reuse my original example, sexual abuse aimed at a particular teacher being shouted through school railings, by children or others. Can’t see that this is anything to do with the employer. Perhaps we need to add ‘on the premises’ to any definition? This would catch abuse of waitresses by customers, with which, I am sure, many employers collude.

]]>