0370 1500 100
Request a call back
Send us an email
Request a call back
Send us an email
Specialising in both contentious and non-contentious employment law, Omer provides practical solutions on personnel issues to corporate clients in a range of exciting sectors.
Omer is typically involved in tribunal litigation, advising on strategic HR issues, redundancies, reorganisations and outsourcing. Clients include multi-national organisations, financial institutions, IT companies, recruitment agencies, facility management providers and manufacturing businesses. Much of Omer’s practice is non-contentious.
He has particular expertise in TUPE, large-scale redundancies, boardroom disputes, top-level executive exits and the enforcement of restrictive covenants.
He is also an experienced tribunal advocate with ten years’ experience fighting cases in Employment Tribunals, predominantly on behalf of respondents and high net-worth claimants.
Omer leads the firm’s national business immigration practice, which supports company clients in bringing overseas experts to work for them in the UK, whilst also ensuring that his clients comply with their obligations to prevent illegal working.
“The case was going to be appealed whichever way it went, which passes on responsibility for a ruling of huge constitutional and historical importance to the Supreme Court.
“This decision doesn’t really add much to an already fraught situation, but it puts the spotlight on the risk in the UK economy and highlights the need for businesses to have strategies in place to be highly flexible as the Brexit journey may lead them to unexpected places.
“Businesses should not jump to the conclusion that Brexit will not happen. Strategically, the effect will depend on the sector of the economy, so businesses should check how customer requirements will be affected depending on the outcome, and also review supply chains as the economics of international sourcing networks will be affected if we do leave.”
“This looks to be a tactical move by the Prime Minister. Supporting a points-based system is at odds with the concept of free movement across the EU and if Theresa May backed such a system, it could be seen to be pulling up the drawbridge after the referendum. This could scupper negotiations with the EU around key things like access to the single market and securing passporting rights for City financial institutions to make transactions across the EEA.
“I think that the Prime Minister is more likely to try and appease everyone with a move away from the ‘full fat’ concept of free movement to a ‘light’ version which involves EU citizens requiring a job offer before they can come to the UK.”
There is evidence that the remissions system is doing very little to protect access to justice, not least because the criteria and process for obtaining fee remission are anything but simple.
The substantial fall in the number of discrimination claims since July 2013 is well documented, with the figure for sex discrimination claims most commonly cited by MPs and others.
It would appear that women have been big losers under the fees regime, with both sex discrimination and equal pay claims depressed markedly more than those in other countries.
The legal challenge is focused on indirect discrimination and Unison said that the Court of Appeal, in effect, made a mistake in finding that the rules did not adversely affect these protected groups even though it accepted that there had been a significant decline in the numbers of claims.
It said that relying on the figures alone did not necessarily mean that claimants were unable to pay the fees. Whether the Supreme Court will reach a different decision remains to be seen, but this is a public policy issue and the Court may be reluctant to disrupt the status quo.
There's no doubt that the fall in claim numbers due to the introduction of fees is having the effect desired by the Government in significantly reducing its multi-million pound bill for running the Tribunal service. The fall in claim numbers also hurts the power and sway of the trade unions, so they will fight this all the way. For those reasons, neither the Government or the unions are likely to back away from this fight any time soon.
“Social media offers huge benefits to organisations, allowing them to communicate and engage with customers – or in this case cinemagoers – in a way that was simply not possible before.
“There are major advantages to such platforms, but this issue highlights the problems that can emerge if a seemingly disgruntled employee – of sorts – takes to social media to highlight disappointments or grievances.
“All businesses, regardless of their industry, need to be alive to the potential reputational damage that can be caused by such issues and should have clear guidance and policies in place to ensure those working for them understand what is acceptable.
“As a director of a film produced by Fox, it is likely that Josh Trank has a contract which outlines what is expected of him during the creation of such a film and its promotion, so it would be surprising if this did not include clauses related to publicity regarding the finished product.
“It is also important that employees recognise that they can face disciplinary action even if a comment is made outside of work or, like in this instance, on personal accounts. Even when the employment relationship has ended, an employer could still take legal action via the courts.
“Finally, employers should recognise that consistency is key – every matter should be handled in accordance with a strict set of guidelines. This is particularly important as showing leniency in one could cause issues if they then choose to act more strictly in another.
“It will be interesting to see if more emerges regarding this very public spat and whether it does indeed lead to Fox taking some form of action against the seemingly unhappy director.”
Enter your details below and we'll call you back, at a time of your choice.