<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>CLB Employment Solutions Blog</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.clbemployment.com/blog</link>
	<description>Welcome to the CLB Employment Solutions blog. This is where we share information, news and views about CLB Employment Solutions and employment law in general. Feel free to get involved. We&#039;d love to hear from you.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 15:48:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>resignation &#8220;with immediate effect&#8221; takes immediate effect</title>
		<link>http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/05/resignation-with-immediate-effect-takes-immediate-effect/</link>
		<comments>http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/05/resignation-with-immediate-effect-takes-immediate-effect/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 15:48:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Malone</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resignation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unfair dismissal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tresignation with immediate effect]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/?p=2156</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Horwood v Lincoln County Council is a useful reminder that although the parties to a contract can, between them, agree to change the end date of a contract, bringing it forward and or putting it back, that cannot displace the &#8230; <a href="http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/05/resignation-with-immediate-effect-takes-immediate-effect/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/05/resignation-with-immediate-effect-takes-immediate-effect/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>when is the reversal of burden of proof triggered?</title>
		<link>http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/05/when-is-the-reversal-of-burden-of-proof-triggered/</link>
		<comments>http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/05/when-is-the-reversal-of-burden-of-proof-triggered/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 15:42:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Malone</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reversal of burden of proof]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/?p=2150</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The provision of the Equality Act 2010 reversing the burden of proof in discrimination claims (section 136) means that if a claimant can show facts which could amount to discrimination, then a tribunal must find for him or her, unless &#8230; <a href="http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/05/when-is-the-reversal-of-burden-of-proof-triggered/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/05/when-is-the-reversal-of-burden-of-proof-triggered/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>tribunals have no power to allocate liability between joint respondents</title>
		<link>http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/05/tribunals-have-no-power-to-allocate-liability-between-joint-respondents/</link>
		<comments>http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/05/tribunals-have-no-power-to-allocate-liability-between-joint-respondents/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 15:20:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Malone</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civil liability contribution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[split liability]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/?p=2144</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Brennan &#38; Others v (1) Sunderland City Council (2) GMB (3) Unison is a case arising from somewhat unusual circumstances, but the decision is one of relevance in many more situations. It is part of the long running equal pay &#8230; <a href="http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/05/tribunals-have-no-power-to-allocate-liability-between-joint-respondents/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/05/tribunals-have-no-power-to-allocate-liability-between-joint-respondents/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>servant or serf?</title>
		<link>http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/05/servant-or-serf/</link>
		<comments>http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/05/servant-or-serf/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 15:06:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Malone</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[contract terms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contracts of employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TUPE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consent to transfer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peninsula]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/?p=2138</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It doesn&#8217;t seem so long ago that the concept of an automatic transfer of employees under TUPE evoked exclamations of incredulity and disbelief amongst non-lawyers (and some lawyers). Now we have all got used to the idea, Gabriel v (1) &#8230; <a href="http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/05/servant-or-serf/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/05/servant-or-serf/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>rejected applicants have no right to disclosure of  the successful candidate&#8217;s details</title>
		<link>http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/05/rejected-applicants-have-no-right-to-disclosure-of-the-successful-candidates-details/</link>
		<comments>http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/05/rejected-applicants-have-no-right-to-disclosure-of-the-successful-candidates-details/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 14:57:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Malone</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disclosure of documents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[questionnaire procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unsuccessful job applicants]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/?p=2133</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Do rejected applicants have the right to disclosure of documents relating to the successful candidate if they consider they have suffered unlawful discrimination the the recruitment process? No, said the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Meister v Speech Design &#8230; <a href="http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/05/rejected-applicants-have-no-right-to-disclosure-of-the-successful-candidates-details/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/05/rejected-applicants-have-no-right-to-disclosure-of-the-successful-candidates-details/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>indirect discrimination related to retirement is unlawful age discrimination</title>
		<link>http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/05/indirect-discrimination-related-to-retirement-is-unlawful-age-discrimination/</link>
		<comments>http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/05/indirect-discrimination-related-to-retirement-is-unlawful-age-discrimination/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 14:38:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Malone</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[age discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[retirement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[indirect discrimination]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/?p=2127</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Another important age discrimination and retirement case this month is Homer v West Yorks Police, which concerned a senior police officer who became a legal adviser at the Police National Legal Database after retiring from the police aged 51. At &#8230; <a href="http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/05/indirect-discrimination-related-to-retirement-is-unlawful-age-discrimination/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/05/indirect-discrimination-related-to-retirement-is-unlawful-age-discrimination/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>justification for direct age discrimination must be related to the general public interest</title>
		<link>http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/05/justification-for-direct-age-discrimination-must-be-related-to-the-general-public-interest/</link>
		<comments>http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/05/justification-for-direct-age-discrimination-must-be-related-to-the-general-public-interest/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 14:30:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Malone</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[age discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[retirement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[compulsory retirement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/?p=2120</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This month&#8217;s biggest employment law news stories have to be the Supreme Court&#8217;s two decisions on age discrimination in Seldon v Clarkson Wright &#38; Jakes and Homer v West Yorks Police. Both give useful guidance about how cases on age &#8230; <a href="http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/05/justification-for-direct-age-discrimination-must-be-related-to-the-general-public-interest/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/05/justification-for-direct-age-discrimination-must-be-related-to-the-general-public-interest/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>a call for evidence on compensated no-fault dismissals</title>
		<link>http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/04/a-call-for-evidence-on-compensated-no-fault-dismissals/</link>
		<comments>http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/04/a-call-for-evidence-on-compensated-no-fault-dismissals/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:58:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Malone</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[no-fault dismissal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Australian Small Business Code]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consulation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/?p=2111</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contrary to what you might have read in the papers (naming no broadsheet names), &#8220;compensated no-fault dismissals&#8221; have no date for implementation. However, The Department for Business Innovation and Skills has put out a &#8220;call for evidence&#8221; on that proposal, &#8230; <a href="http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/04/a-call-for-evidence-on-compensated-no-fault-dismissals/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/04/a-call-for-evidence-on-compensated-no-fault-dismissals/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>pension rights of part-time judges</title>
		<link>http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/04/pension-rights-of-part-time-judges-latest/</link>
		<comments>http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/04/pension-rights-of-part-time-judges-latest/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:41:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Malone</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[pensions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[part-time judges]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pension rights]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/?p=2097</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Of direct personal interest to a minority of our readership &#8211; albeit a very important one(!) &#8211; is O&#39;Brien v Ministry of Justice in which the European Court of Justice (ECJ) dealt with a long running case on the question &#8230; <a href="http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/04/pension-rights-of-part-time-judges-latest/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/04/pension-rights-of-part-time-judges-latest/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>conversion of fixed terms to permanent contracts: what changes in terms are permitted?</title>
		<link>http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/04/conversion-of-fixed-terms-to-permanent-contracts-what-changes-in-terms-are-permitted/</link>
		<comments>http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/04/conversion-of-fixed-terms-to-permanent-contracts-what-changes-in-terms-are-permitted/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:31:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Malone</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[part-time workers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conversion to full time]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/?p=2089</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Huet v Universit&#233; de Bretagne occidentale is a case referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) from the administrative court in Rennes concerning the French equivalent of the Fixed-term Employees Regulations and makes an important practical point. The background &#8230; <a href="http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/04/conversion-of-fixed-terms-to-permanent-contracts-what-changes-in-terms-are-permitted/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.clbemployment.com/blog/2012/04/conversion-of-fixed-terms-to-permanent-contracts-what-changes-in-terms-are-permitted/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Database Caching using disk: basic

Served from: www.clbemployment.com @ 2012-05-19 02:48:49 -->
