Search for:
Author

Monica R. Kurnatowska

Browsing
Monica Kurnatowksa is a partner in the Firm’s London office. She is recognised by The Legal 500 and Chambers UK as a leading individual. Chambers say she has “impressive experience of handling complex employment disputes and advisory matters for major clients. She is known for her expertise in trade union matters.” "The breadth of her experience is phenomenal." "She is an outstanding lawyer who provides a first-class service while juggling the intense demands of running high-profile matters on behalf of her clients. She is unflappable, courteous and extremely knowledgeable”. Monica is a member of the Consultation Board of PLC Employment On-line and is a regular speaker at internal and external seminars and workshops.

Further to the Employment Rights Bill that was published on 10 October 2024, the government has launched a consultation on strengthening statutory sick pay. The consultation seeks views on the amount of statutory sick pay that employees earning less than the current eligibility threshold should receive as part of the amendments to the Employment Rights Bill.

In brief The Employment Rights Bill (ERB) introduces a new requirement for employers to prevent third party harassment of employees in the course of their employment. Once in force, this requirement will apply to harassment because of any protected characteristic not just sexual harassment. It is an extensive obligation because…

The new duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of employees will come into force on 26 October 2024. Following a consultation during the summer, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has published an eight-step guide to preventing sexual harassment at work and made further updates to its technical guidance on sexual harassment and harassment at work

With effect from 1 January 2024, the government amended the Equality Act 2010 (EqA) to include associative indirect discrimination claims, with the stated aim of replicating and preserving existing EU case law. The EAT has confirmed that such claims were possible in relation to events occurring prior to 1 January too, under then-applicable principles of EU law. This means that where an employer applies a provision, criterion, or practice (PCP) which puts people with a particular protected characteristic at a disadvantage, and where the claimant also suffers that same disadvantage, the claimant does not need to have the same protected characteristic as the disadvantaged group. (BA v Rollett and Ors, EAT).

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has upheld an employment tribunal’s decision that an employee was precluded from bringing disability discrimination claims against his employer as they had been validly waived under a prior settlement agreement. The decision confirms the Court of Session’s decision in Bathgate v. Technip Singapore PTE Ltd that unknown future claims can be validly waived under a settlement agreement although the drafting will need to be absolutely clear in this respect.

In today’s working world, transparency is not a box to tick but a new and very real workforce reality. Evolving reporting requirements, intensifying stakeholder pressure (both internally and externally) and increasing recognition of what it means to be a responsible business are shaping how organizations disclose information about – and subsequently respond to – their workforce priorities.

Defining, identifying and addressing inappropriate workplace behavior is increasingly a business-critical issue. Although local differences apply, many jurisdictions have similar legal requirements for protection of employees. This article explores the current legal framework, as well as the risks and litigation landscape, in the United Kingdom, Spain, the Netherlands, South Africa and the United Arab Emirates.

The employment tribunal ruled that a Christian actor was not discriminated against because of religion or belief when she was dismissed from the role of a lesbian character and her agency terminated her contract following a social media storm after an old Facebook post was discovered saying that she believed homosexuality to be a sin.

The Supreme Court has ruled that section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA) which does not prevent employers from taking action short of dismissal in response to striking employees is incompatible with Article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). Although the declaration of incompatibility does not affect the validity or operation of section 146, it will put pressure on the government to legislate to correct the position, and employers are likely to be mindful of the decision when considering action short of dismissal in response to industrial action. Detriments for participation in industrial action, such as removing discretionary benefits from those who take part, currently remain lawful, so long as the detriments in question aren’t so severe as to constitute a constructive dismissal.