Publication
EU Emissions Trading System – What have we learned after nine months of operation?
European shipping and ships calling at EU ports became subject to the EU ETS in January 2024.
Global | Publication | December 2016
Corporations carrying on business are exposed to two broad types of risk arising from the conduct of employees:
The first type of conduct covers actions by a bad or rogue employee - fraud or embezzlement, through to misuse of confidential information and illegitimate competitive activities.
The traditional method for addressing the risks posed by such conduct involves the following:
The method exists largely to enable recourse against the bad or rogue employee after the impugned conduct has occurred.
The second kind of conduct does not necessarily spring from bad motives on the part of employees. What we are talking about here are actions that might be said to amount to sexual harassment, bullying, discrimination or the creation of safety risks which expose the employer to liability under statute. So, for example, conduct by one employee against another that answers the legal definition of sexual harassment will be sheeted home to the employer under the Federal Sex Discrimination Act if the conduct is connected with work and if the employer cannot show that it took all reasonable steps to prevent the conduct. By way of further example, the inadvertent actions of an employee can give rise to risks to health and safety which result in the employer being in breach of the primary duty under WHS legislation.
Because the risks posed by the second type of employee conduct are more diverse and not tied to any notion of motive/intention on the part of the employee, the risk management strategies that must be adopted by employers in this area need to have the following characteristics:
It is readily apparent that those characteristics are not focussed on punishing behaviour after the event, but on creating a way of doing things at the workplace (a “culture”, as it were) that stops the risk from materialising into a problematic event.
This raises the question of whether a pro-active and broad-based risk management system ought to be applied in relation to the potential risks of intentional conduct by “bad” or “rogue” employees as an adjunct to the traditional “punish after the event” approach.
This idea is at the centre of our recent Risk Ready workshops. Stay tuned for further articles in which we explore the issues raised in those workshops.
Publication
European shipping and ships calling at EU ports became subject to the EU ETS in January 2024.
Publication
In this horizon scan, we focus on key developments affecting companies operating in the UK, including in light of the recent change in UK government.
Publication
On 3 September 2024, the ECJ delivered its judgment in Illumina’s appeal against the General Court’s (GC) judgment confirming the European Commission’s (EC) powers to review concentrations under the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR) in circumstances where no Member State has jurisdiction under national law.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023