Search results

An employee who is eligible to make a complaint for unfair dismissal has to prove that he has been dismissed by the employer if the employer contests that the employee has in fact been dismissed. If the dismissal is not contested, all the employee has to do is to show that he has been dismissed. This constitutes the first stage of the proceedings in an industrial tribunal.

In a previous monograph a discussion took place on stages one and part of stage two of the three stage process in an unfair dismissal action, namely the employee having to show that he has been dismissed (stage one), and some of the reasons for dismissal which fall within the statutory categories, namely the employee's capability and qualifications; misconduct and redundancy (part of stage two). In this monograph an analysis is proposed on the two remaining reasons, these being the contravention of a duty imposed by an enactment and some other substantial reason. There will then follow a discussion on the test of fairness as constituting the third of the three stage process and on the remedies available when the tribunal finds that the employee has been unfairly dismissed.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the concept of agency on basis of a pragmatist philosophy framework of analysis. Agency is a key analytical concept in management studies, debated in terms of its theoretical elements and its degree of empirical substantiation. Agency is commonly either assumed to be the case, understood as some generic human capacity to act with integrity, or, alternatively, agency is considered to be derived from social structures, say professional norms or occupational identities acquired through socialization. In contrast, in an attempt to escape the agency/structure model, agency may be considered as what is generated in and through meso-level interactions, constituted as recurrent practices wherein accomplishments in the past serve as the template for new activities that further reinforce agential capacities.

Drawing on the work of pragmatist philosopher Donald Davidson and what he calls the principle of charity, this paper presents an analytical model wherein agency is generated on basis of a shared everyday language wherein beliefs and preferences are constituted and thereafter serve as the basis of agential action.

Davidson’s externalist theory of action is supportive of the theory and study of meso-level interactions and helps to overcome the question whether agency is exogenously given or the effect of social structure.

This paper reviews recent social science literature on agency and introduces pragmatist philosophy concepts to better examine under what conditions social actors can reasonably have faith in an interaction being premised on beliefs that are held on basis of rational and reasonable grounds. This adds to an integrated theory of agency, being of importance for social theory and organizational analysis more specifically.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the potential impact of measures taken in accordance with powers introduced by Schedule 7 of the Counter‐Terrorism Act 2008 on banks and their customers.

The paper analyses the legal provisions setting out these powers and comments on their scope; discusses the guidance issued with respect to these provisions by the Joint Money Laundering Steering Group, as well as other commentary on these provisions; examines the remedies available to those affected by the measures taken in exercise of the Schedule 7 powers; and comments on the use made of these powers to date and the relevant outcomes.

The paper concludes that while the Schedule 7 powers are useful in permitting a targeted response to money laundering and terrorism financing, they can be needlessly damaging to business unless used in a proportionate and risk‐sensitive manner.

The paper analyses critically the first judicial review decision made in respect of the exercise of Schedule 7 powers.

The nearest relative of a patient detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 (HM Government, 1983) has an important role to play. S/he might even object to detention, and in some circumstances, any such objection will have to be respected and the patient cannot lawfully be detained. A recent High Court case examined what it means to object to detention. The judge said that although a nearest relative might be believed not to have objected, detention will only be lawful if that belief was reasonable. He also suggested that in some cases, objection should be inferred from a nearest relative's previous conduct.

The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA 1998) was the model for South Africa’s Protected Disclosures Act 2000 and has been regarded as an exemplary piece of legislation in debates in other countries, for example, the Netherlands, New Zealand and some Australian states. However, in the light of international developments since PIDA 1998 came into force, in particular the principles contained in the Council of Europe Recommendation and the enactment of more sophisticated statutes elsewhere, it is contended that the UK legislation is no longer fit for purpose. The purpose of this article is to make suggestions for reform in the light of developments elsewhere.

This paper assesses the operation of PIDA 1998 (as amended) in the light of the case law and empirical research.

The paper makes detailed suggestions for reform in relation to both the law and practice of whistleblowing.

The paper focuses on the main issues raised by the UK whistleblowing provisions. It has implications both nationally and internationally.

It is hoped that the recommendations will provoke thought about legislative reforms and changes in management practices.

If the reforms suggested in the paper are enacted, it is expected that workers will be more confident about raising concerns about wrongdoing. This should benefit society generally in that economic inefficiencies can be dealt with and citizens can enjoy greater freedom of speech.

This review of the UK legislation over 19 years should be of value to academics, students, legal and management practitioners both at home and abroad.

The paper proposes to compare the relative success of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (UK) and the Protected Disclosures Act 2000 (South Africa) in providing protection for whistleblowers in the UK and South Africa.

The assessment is conducted in the light of case law in both countries and empirical research previously conducted.

The most important feature of the relevant statutes in both countries is that they recognise the need to protect workers who disclose in the public interest. Although the current provisions are important first steps, it is believed that much more needs to be done.

In the light of this research, 14 suggestions are made for change.

The article makes proposals for reform to the legislation in both countries. It also attempts to provide guidance to practitioners by identifying good practice in handling concerns about wrongdoing.

The increased regulatory scrutiny in recent years of public corporations, broker‐dealers, and other investment companies has led to a wave of legislative and regulatory reforms. Central to these reforms is the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act (“SOX” or “the Act”), enacted in July 2002. Intended to restore investor confidence in ailing financial markets reeling from a spate of highly publicized corporate governance scandals, the Act reforms the oversight of corporate accounting practices and addresses a wide range of corporate accountability issues. In addition, the Act significantly raises the protections for employees of public companies who report conduct that they reasonably believe constitutes a violation of federal law relating to financial, securities, or shareholder fraud. Thus, the Act creates new federal administrative and judicial remedies for employees who believe they have been retaliated against for blowing the whistle on corporate fraud.

This paper aims to enlighten the shortcomings of the EU Whistleblowing Directive 2019/1973, which could interfere negatively with its successful national implementation. In focus is the tension between companies potentially attempting to hide misconduct and disgruntled employees taking advantage of generous protection under the directive.

With an extensive literary basis, this paper explores articles of the EU Whistleblowing Directive 2019/1973 under five areas of the so-called “weakness.” With view to Germany and Austria, the difficulty of implementing the directive is highlighted and likewise with view to Switzerland, a potential solution is presented.

The Whistleblowing Directive 2019/1973 overshoots its target by protecting whistleblowers without considering the wider public interest. There are specific points of arbitrary definition which demand resolution to ensure a successful national implementation.

This is a multifaceted discussion of a highly contentious ethical debate. Through an exploration of specific points of the Directive, it is possible to present why there are points of contention in the first place, and also the difficulty of implementing the principle of proportionality. The issue at the heart of the matter is balancing the protection of trade secrets with the fundamental necessity of whistleblowing as a means of last resort.

To examine the criminal laws and regulations on money laundering control in China and Hong Kong and to call for legal and institutional reforms in China.

This paper provides a comparative analysis and critically reviews the laws and regulations on money laundering control in China and Hong Kong.

China has shown a firm determination to combat money laundering since 2002. Reforms on Article 191 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China (1997) and the institutional framework are called for to comply with the international standards of the FATF recommendations, the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (2000) and the UN Convention against Corruption (2003) to control money laundering.

This paper highlights the problems and proposes both legal and institutional reforms on money laundering control in China.

This paper initiates the analytical research on the legal and institutional problems of money laundering control in China which had not been adequately explored.