The pitfalls of carrying out a DIY divorce…

Unhappy couples across Coventry and Warwickshire are being warned against the pitfalls of carrying out a DIY divorce.

The popular method of divorce involves couples downloading, filling out and submitting documentation to the courts themselves, or with limited online help, perhaps limiting their costs to the £550 court fee in a bid to save money.

However Tracy Cross, Head of Family at Coventry law firm Band Hatton Button, has been handling numerous divorce cases that have originated from DIY divorces that have gone wrong, particularly where couples have unintentionally ended up with a defended and time-consuming divorce.

Keen to dispel the myth of conventional divorces being expensive, Tracy said: “Divorces only become costly if couples spend time arguing over how to do the divorce, their share of money and children’s issues; an undefended divorce in itself is a relatively cheap, straight-forward paperwork process that takes around six-months to conclude.

“There are two types of divorce – defended and undefended. In the majority of cases the person receiving the divorce doesn’t want to defend it, but equally doesn’t like what is being said about them, which is where good legal advice should be sought to navigate this issue in an informed, efficient and cost-saving manner.

“Doing a DIY divorce and ticking various boxes without knowing the consequences can be an extremely dangerous thing to do.

“There’s a common misconception that once a divorce is complete all financial claims are ended. They’re not. People need to think about the financial element as a separate process to the divorce.

“For example if a person going through a divorce doesn’t finalise any financial settlement because they don’t have much money now, it may allow their ex-spouse to claim for a share of any pension or money that they come into in the future.

“This is why it is so important for people to employ a solicitor to explain the process and what the consequences of each decision, or lack of decision is.

“Filing for a divorce yourself may save money in the short-term, but paying for sound legal advice up front could save people money in the long run.”

Employment Bulletin – August 2018

Pimlico and Hermes ‘worker’ rulings could affect gig economy

The Supreme Court ruling in the Pimlico Plumbers case and the Employment Tribunal decision involving Hermes help to clarify the difference between ‘worker’ and ‘self-employed’ and could have a significant impact on the gig economy.

The long running dispute involving London based Pimlico was initiated by one of its plumbers, Gary Smith.

Mr Smith had carried out work for the company for almost six years. He had entered into two agreements, stating that the company was not obliged to offer him work and he was not obliged to accept it.

The company manual stated that he was required to wear a company uniform, carry a company ID card, use a company mobile phone and hire a company van when carrying out the work. He was expected to work five days per week for 40 hours.

He had the right to decline jobs or send another company operative in his place if he could not attend.

He brought claims for unfair dismissal, unlawful deductions from wages, unpaid annual leave and disability discrimination. The Employment Tribunal concluded that he was not a “worker” under a contract of service for the purposes of the unfair dismissal claim, but he was a worker within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act, the Working Time Regulations 1998, and he was in “employment” within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.

Those decisions have now been upheld by the Supreme Court. The justices said Mr Smith should be classed as a worker, not as self-employed, meaning he is entitled to various employment rights such as holiday pay.

In giving his ruling, Lord Wilson, said: “Although the contract did provide him with elements of operational and financial independence, Mr Smith’s services to the company’s customers were marketed through the company.

“More importantly, its terms enabled the company to exercise tight administrative control over him during his periods of work; to impose fierce conditions on when and how much it paid to him, which were described at one point as his wages; and to restrict his ability to compete with it for plumbing work following any termination of their relationship.”

The chief executive of Pimlico Plumbers, Charlie Mullins, criticised the decision and said he would consider further legal action.

The Hermes case involved 65 of its drivers. The Employment Tribunal in Leeds held that they were workers, not self-employed contractors.

It’s likely that both the Pimlico and the Hermes rulings will have an impact on the growing gig economy and may influence several other cases coming before the courts involving companies that rely on people they classify as self-employed.

The government is already considering recommendations made in the Taylor Review of working practices to improve worker rights, but no firm decisions have yet been made.

 

Firm discriminated against pregnant woman by extending probation

The Employment Tribunal has ruled that an employer discriminated against a woman when it extended her probationary period after discovering she was pregnant.

The employee was appointed as a contracts administrator on 8 June 2016 and agreed a start date of 20 June. However, five days before she was due to start, she discovered that she was pregnant.

The employee didn’t inform the employer of her pregnancy before she took up her position as she didn’t believe it was necessary to do so.

She eventually told her office manager that she was 12-weeks pregnant on 25 July. The office manager appeared to be “completely thrown” by the news but later held a meeting with the employee and told her that her employment would not be affected.

However, over the following months her probation period was twice extended amid concerns about her performance and at a meeting on 20 December, she was told she would have to undergo another probation period after returning from maternity leave.

She brought a claim of direct discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy

Under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010, an employer discriminates against a woman if in the protected period in relation to a pregnancy of hers, she is treated unfavourably because of the pregnancy.

The Employment Tribunal found in the employee’s favour.  The Employment Judge said: “We are entirely satisfied that the Claimant’s pregnancy was an effective cause of her probationary period being extended for a second time and that the Claimant was therefore, again, subjected to unfavourable treatment because of her pregnancy.”

A second hearing was scheduled to determine how the situation should be remedied and to set the level of compensation if appropriate.

 

Dismissing employee for failing to complete training was ‘not unfair’

A pharmaceutical company was within its rights to dismiss an employee who failed to complete mandatory online training courses.

That was the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in a recent case involving a medical sales rep.

In January 2016, the employee was dismissed for failing to complete two online training courses.

He took legal action claiming unfair dismissal. He didn’t deny that he failed to complete the training but said that was only because he was prioritising more important tasks.

The employer claimed their trust in the employee had been damaged and dismissed him for gross misconduct, which was later reduced to serious misconduct.

The tribunal ruled in favour of the employee. It said that the employer had been wrong to consider the actions as gross misconduct. Given that this was later downgraded to serious misconduct, a warning would have been the appropriate disciplinary action.

However, the EAT has overturned that decision. A Judge described the approach of the tribunal as “fundamentally flawed”.

She said there had been too much focus on the nature of the employee’s misconduct when the severity of the employer’s response was the key to the case.

The Judge said: “The tribunal’s approach in this case was flawed: it unduly limited the potential range of reasonable responses by applying a general rule as to when dismissal might be fair in cases of conduct falling short of gross misconduct, when no such rule is laid down.”

However, she added that it would not be right for the EAT to reach its own verdict regarding the case, and that it must be put before another employment tribunal to be settled.

 

 

Recognising the gender agenda for trans staff

Recognising the gender agenda for trans staff  

Trans campaigners are hoping for a simpler path to legal recognition of gender change following the government’s announcement that it is reviewing the process.  Elsewhere, the High Court has set an important precedent on the right to respect for non-gendered identity, marking a milestone in civil rights litigation on gender identity and LGBTI+ rights.  

Public awareness of gender identification has increased significantly since former Olympian and reality star Caitlyn Jenner took the issue mainstream in unveiling her transition in 2015.  Recently, producers of the Supergirl TV show announced a transgender superhero would feature in the cast.  For employers, there is a need to keep up to speed with this fast-changing landscape to ensure policies do not inadvertently discriminate on grounds of gender identity, whether through personnel protocols, toilet provision or dress codes.   

The Equality Act 2010 protects trans people from discrimination, and guidance for employers recommends an inclusive workplace, with a supportive environment that means staff feel able to declare any change in gender identification.  The Government has estimated there are between 200,000 and 500,000 trans people in the UK, but research suggests that some 2 in 3 of all trans people have been afraid to be open about their gender and last year LGBT charity Stonewall reported that 41% of trans people had experienced a hate crime because of their gender identity in the previous 12 months. 

One of the first challenges for any HR team may be in understanding how to deal with a change in an individual’s self-identified gender.  The answer is that employers need to handle the news carefully, find out how the individual wants to be addressed by colleagues, and when they would like to announce the transition.  Then, post-transition, make sure all records relating to that employee have been updated to the new name and gender.  

Said employment specialist Mark Ridley of Coventry-based lawyers Band Hatton Button: “There is no need for official paperwork to be in place before an employer recognises a gender shift.  Trans people can change their name and gender for almost all services without changing their legal gender, simply by asking for the change to be made, including passports, driving licences and their employment records. 

“It is only if they wish to get married or request appropriate pension provision that they must have a new birth certificate, which requires a Gender Recognition Certificate to be issued under the Gender Recognition Act 2004.  It is this process that the Government is looking to reform, to make it less intrusive and bureaucratic when trans people apply for legal recognition of their acquired gender.”  

Experts advise that it’s worth checking that processes don’t take a binary approach to gender, as increasing numbers are asking for a gender-neutral option in form-filling.  Recently the process of applying for a passport was challenged on these grounds by long-standing campaigner Christie Elan-Cane.  

Although the case was dismissed, the judgement marked a significant development in the law in this area as the Court recognised that the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 8) guarantees a right to respect for non-gendered identity.  This means the Government must consider the rights of non-gendered, intersex, trans and non-binary people, who do not identify as exclusively male or female, when forming policy in future.   

Mark added: “Gender neutral approaches can be useful, including for toilet provision in both the workplace and customer facilities. Single-occupancy toilets that are simply marked with a generic WC sign can be used by anyone, whether they are comfortable using a toilet in gender-specific usage or not, although no one can be forced to use a single-occupancy toilet where gender specific facilities are also available.  It must be their choice, as under the Equality Act 2010 anyone who identifies themselves as a specific gender can choose to use the appropriate single-sex facilities.”

The Act allows service providers to refuse a trans person access to single-sex services if it may be detrimental to others and the review of the Gender Recognition Act will not affect women-only spaces and services such as safeguarding processes, as currently used in refuges and healthcare services.  Neither will it change any protected characteristics in the Equality Act relating to gender, religion and disability.  

Protected characteristics are likely to be relevant also in the context of dress codes for trans workers.  Earlier this year, the Government Equalities Office (GEO) issued long awaited guidance on workplace dress codes.  Despite a high-profile petition by temporary worker Nicola Thorp, who was sent home in 2016 for refusing to wear high heeled shoes, the new code stops short of harsh punishments, saying: “dress policies for men and women do not have to be identical. However, the standards imposed should be equivalent. This means there must be similar or equivalent rules laid down for both male and female employees”.  The guidelines also say that “it is best to avoid gender-specific requirements”, going on to remind employers that “transgender employees should be allowed to follow the organisation’s dress code in a way which they feel matches their gender identity”.

ENDS

Web site content note:  

This is not legal advice; it is intended to provide information of general interest about current legal issues.

Two newly-qualified lawyers join ranks

A Coventry law firm’s investment in trainees has paid off after adding two newly-qualified lawyers to its ranks.

Helping a client with a double 21st celebration

Band Hatton Button has helped a client with a double 21st celebration.

Grace Homes, a house builder based in Corby, has started work on a new development of 21 homes at Welland Fields in Lubenham, near Market Harborough, and seven homes at Langdale in Thorpe Langton – just as it celebrated its 21st anniversary.

The homes at Welland Fields are mixture of three, four and five bed homes, whilst Langdale reflects its rural heritage with individually designed two, three and four bedroom homes reminiscent of a traditional farmstead. Both sites are expected to be completed by 2019.

It is the latest development for the firm founded by Henry Barney and Steve Bateman – and the latest on which Band Hatton Button’s Ian Grindal has acted.

The company acts on all development matters for Grace Homes, which has created hundreds of homes in various locations since building its first property in 1997.

Band Hatton Button provided advice on land acquisition through to site set up and plot sales, with all of the related road, sewer and planning agreements required on new estates.

Ian said: “It is always really pleasing to act for a client on a long-term basis and see it growing and thriving. Grace Homes has always concentrated on the quality and design of their products and we have developed a really strong relationship over the years.”

For more information visit www.gracehomes.co.uk

Employment legislation changes sees businesses urged to review practices

Businesses across Coventry and Warwickshire are being urged to review their employment practices in light of recent and impending legislative changes.

Mark Ridley, employment solicitor at Coventry city centre-based solicitors Band Hatton Button, is advising firms to sharpen their focus across key areas such as gender pay gap reporting and GDPR which have already come into effect, while also monitoring proposals relating to the rights of GIG economy workers.

Here is some further guidance from Mark to bring businesses up to speed on key employment issues:

 

The GIG Economy

The Taylor Review was set up in November 2016 by BEIS (Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy). This was to be an independent review of employment practices in the modern economy. The purpose of the review was to consider what might be the implications of what had become new ways of working, including a review of workers’ rights. On July 11, 2017 the Taylor Report was published. It contained various recommendations, which required further consultation.

The government published a response to the Taylor Report in February 2018. Their response contained various proposals, some of which increased workers’ rights. It also contained proposals as to how workers’ awareness of their rights might be increased.

Various consultations followed, which have now been concluded. The report also led to two Commons Select Committees undertaking further enquiries. This resulted in a further report in November 2017.

This all culminated in a draft Bill. However, further consultation is now being undertaken in relation to that draft bill.

The proposals include:

  • The right to a written statement of terms for all workers, including those on zero hours contracts and agency workers
  • The right to itemised pay slips for all workers
  • The low pay commission to consider the impact of introducing a higher national minimum wage for hours not guaranteed by contract
  • The increase in the one week gap between assignments breaking continuity of employment
  • Simplification of working out pay for the purposes of holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations
  • Increased pay transparency for agency workers

In the meantime, tribunals take the lead in establishing employment status. Increasingly they are being asked to find that somebody engaged on a self-employed basis was in fact a worker or an employee. The recent trend of the high-profile cases has been, for the most part, but not exclusively, to establish that such individuals are in fact workers.

In this ever-changing work environment, employment status and the GIG economy will remain a hot topic in employment law.

 

Gender Pay Gap Reporting

The Gender Pay Gap Regulations came in to force on April 6, 2017. The effect of the regulations is to impose upon employers an obligation to publish information annually, including their gender pay gap. The gender pay gap is the difference between male and female average hourly pay. The regulations require that this information is placed on the employer’s website and on a government website.

Separate requirements were introduced for public sector employers.

The first reports, for large private employers had to be published on or before April 4, 2018.

There are various rules for determining which employees the regulations apply to. In essence, a “relevant employer” for the purposes of the regulations is a private or voluntary sector employer with 250 or more employees on a particular date (April 5). For many employers it will be obvious whether or not they are subject to the regulations. However, some employers will be close to the threshold, in which case very careful consideration will have to be given, including dealing with issues such as casual workers. It may be necessary for some employers to make an assessment as at each April 5, to determine whether they have fallen within the scope of the regulations.

The first gender pay gap reports of large public-sector employers showed that men were paid more than women in 90% of cases. Women in the public sector earned on average 14% less than their male colleagues. Significant pay gaps were reported in the NHS, universities, and local and central government departments.

ACAS and the Government Equalities Office have jointly published guidance on gender pay reporting covering both public and private sector employers.

 

GDPR

No one could not have noticed that GDPR was introduced on May 25, 2018.

The regulations continue to cause uncertainty for employers.

The regulations require employers to notify data subjects about how their personal data will be handled through a privacy notice. This is an ongoing obligation, not one simply to be complied with as at May 25, 2018.

The privacy notice should inform employees about how the employer will collect, use, store, transfer and secure personal data. It applies to not just to employees, but also to workers and contractors. It also applies to applicants and new recruits.

 

For any employment law queries email Mark Ridley: MER@bandhattonbutton.com

Landlords must check they hit the spot with deposits

Claims for incorrectly handled property rental deposits are soaring and landlords should be alert to the danger and ensure they or their agents are complying with the legal requirements, if they want to avoid high penalties.  

According to figures from insurers, the number of claims relating to deposits peaked at 25% of all professional indemnity claims made by estate and letting agents in the first quarter of this year, up from just 3% last year[1].  The claims most often relate to a landlord lodging a deposit late or failing to provide the correct information to the tenant about the terms and the deposit scheme used.

Under the Housing Act 2004, any deposit must be held by the landlord in a registered deposit protection scheme and the tenant must be given specific details of the deposit protection scheme used and details about how the scheme works within 30 days.

If a court rules that a landlord has failed in their duty, it can impose fines of up to three times the value of the deposit, which must be paid within 14 days of the court order.

Explained property litigation legal expert Kristy Ainge of solicitors Band Hatton Button in Coventry:“It’s the landlord who will find themselves subject to the county court order.  They may be able to bring a claim against the letting agent, if there is one involved, who in turn will claim on their professional indemnity insurance. It’s a costly business and bad in reputational terms for all concerned.”

She added: “The legislation has been in place for a long time, but we see both agents and landlords getting it wrong still.  Where landlords have a big property portfolio, they are more likely to have the right processes in place.  For small-scale landlords, or the accidental ones who may have ended up renting out their home while working elsewhere, it’s worth adopting some of the practices of the big boys as it’s no defence to say you didn’t know or had left it to your agent.

“That includes taking some time to understand the law as it affects you as a landlord and having checklists for each stage of the tenancy.  Then you need to make sure they are used each time, whether you are doing it yourself or checking your agency have acted properly on your behalf.  In the worst-case scenario, if you haven’t used a deposit scheme when you should have, the court can rule that a tenant does not have to leave the property when the tenancy ends.”

The prescribed information that must be provided to the tenant includes:

  • the address of the rented property
  • how much deposit you’ve paid
  • how the deposit is protected
  • the name and contact details of the tenancy deposit protection (TDP) scheme and its dispute resolution service
  • their (or the letting agency’s) name and contact details
  • the name and contact details of any third party that’s paid the deposit
  • why they would keep some or all of the deposit
  • how to apply to get the deposit back
  • what to do if you can’t get hold of the landlord at the end of the tenancy
  • what to do if there’s a dispute over the deposit

[1]Claims data compiled by DAC Beachcroft.

Web site content note: 

This is not legal advice; it is intended to provide information of general interest about current legal issues.

Record night of fundraising for childhood cancer charity

More than £10,000 has been raised in one night for Coventry and Warwickshire families affected by childhood cancer.

Planning ahead in case the worst happens

An alarming number of Coventry and Warwickshire residents are putting decisions about their later-life care out of their control despite rising levels of dementia cases.

A Solicitors for the Elderly (SFE) study has revealed that a staggering 98 per cent of people in the region haven’t drafted formal agreements on who they’d like to make decisions about their care should the need arise – that’s despite 80 per cent of people admitting they are worried about dementia and losing the ability to make decisions for themselves.

Moreover, 81 per cent of people haven’t discussed end-of-life medical care wishes, which could be put down to the fact that 70 per cent of people across Coventry and Warwickshire wrongly assume that their spouse automatically has the right to make decisions for them.

The findings come as the number of people diagnosed with dementia continues to rise. By 2025, the Alzheimer Society’ Dementia UK Report estimates that the number of people living with dementia will surpass one million.

Michelle Gavin, head of wills trusts and probate at Coventry-based solicitors Band Hatton Button Solicitors and SFE member, is urging people to put together a Lasting Power of Attorney to formalise their wishes.

“Entering later life without a Lasting Power of Attorney is like playing Russian roulette with your welfare, because if you get struck with an illness that affects your mental capacity, what happens to you is out of your hands,” said Michelle.

“If this happens before an LPA has been formalised, then a friend or family member will need to apply to the court to be granted the ability to be a deputy to make decisions for them.

“This is costly and can be time-consuming, particularly if more than one person decides to apply to make decisions on a person’s behalf.

“Many people see ramnifications for years after a family member is stricken with mental incapacity, which is why it is important to seriously consider planning ahead in case the worst happens.”

ENDS

Web site content note:  

This is not legal advice; it is intended to provide information of general interest about current legal issues.

For legal advice please contact a member of our Wills, Trusts & Probate Team.

Employment Bulletin – July 2018

Cycle courier deemed to be a ‘worker’ entitled to holiday pay

A cycle courier with a taxi firm was a ‘worker’ rather than a self-employed contractor and so was entitled to holiday pay

That was the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in a case involving Addison Lee Ltd and one of its riders, Mr C Gascoigne.

Addison provided a taxi and courier service. Mr Gascoigne’s employment contract stated that he was “an independent contractor”, that nothing in the contract rendered him “an employee, worker, agent or partner” of the company and that he should not hold himself out as such.

He provided his own bike and could choose when he worked. He was paid weekly with a piece rate for each job and a fixed rate for waiting time. He paid his own tax and national insurance and was registered with HMRC as self-employed.

The company deducted an “admin fee” and a payment for insurance cover. Each courier had a company ID and an allocated call sign, and was supplied with a radio, a palmtop computer and GPS tracker.

When available for work, couriers would contact the controller by radio or phone and log on to the allocation system. The company’s position was that Mr Gascoigne worked under a zero hours contract and that it had no obligation to offer him work and there was no obligation on him to accept any such offer.

The Employment Tribunal at the initial hearing referred to the contractual provision that if Mr Gascoigne was logged on to the system he was “deemed to be available and willing to provide Services”.

It found that he was working under the company’s direction and not “running his own business” and was subject to a “classic wage/work bargain”. It held that the contract did not reflect the reality of the parties’ legal relationship.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has upheld that decision.

 

HMRC targets firms failing to pay minimum wage rates

HMRC is continuing to clamp down on firms that fail to pay the National Minimum Wage and is urging underpaid workers to come forward and complain.

The latest figures show that the number of workers getting the money they’re owed has doubled over the last year.

In 2017 to 2018, HMRC investigators identified £15.6m in pay owed to more than a record 200,000 of the UK’s lowest paid workers. That was up from £10.9m for more than 98,000 workers in the previous 12 months.

HMRC launched its online complaints service in January 2017, and this has contributed to the 132% increase in the number of complaints received over the last year.

The figures are published as the government launches its annual advertising campaign designed to encourage workers to take action if they are not receiving the National Living Wage or the National Minimum Wage. The online campaign, which runs over the summer, urges underpaid workers to complain by completing an HMRC online form.

Industries most complained about to HMRC include restaurants, bars, hotels and hairdressing.

Business Minister Andrew Griffiths said: “Employers abusing the system and paying under the legal minimum are breaking the law. Short changing workers is a red line for this government and employers who cross the line will be identified by HMRC and forced to pay back every penny.”

Failure to pay the minimum rates can result in fines of 200% of the arrears, public naming and, for the worst offences, criminal prosecution.

From 1 April 2018, the government’s National Living Wage rate increased by 33p to £7.83 per hour for those aged 25 and over.

The National Minimum Wage increased:

  • by 33p to £7.38 per hour for those aged 21 to 24
  • by 30p to £5.90 per hour for those aged 18 to 20
  • by 15p to £4.20 per hour for those aged 16 to 17
  • by 20p to £3.70 per hour for apprentices.

 

Police officer wins claim over pay for shared parental leave

A police force discriminated against a male officer by paying him less while he was on shared parental leave than a woman would have received while on maternity leave.

That was the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in a case involving Leicestershire Constabulary and one of its officers.

The officer’s claim relied on the ‘provision, criterion or practice’ (PCP) applied by the chief constable of paying only the statutory rate of pay for those taking shared parental leave, whereas women on maternity leave were entitled to full pay for the equivalent period.

The Employment Tribunal rejected his contention that women on maternity leave were valid comparators for men on shared parental leave and so dismissed his claim of direct discrimination.

It then applied that finding in rejecting his indirect discrimination claim. It further rejected that claim on the basis that the PCP did not put men at a disadvantage compared with women.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the decision on direct discrimination but said that the tribunal had been mistaken in using that as a reason to reject the claim of indirect discrimination.

The law required the tribunal to identify the alleged disadvantage and to undertake a comparative exercise to decide whether the PCP put men at a disadvantage compared with women in no materially different circumstances.

The officer was justified in claiming that the provision of offering only statutory pay for shared parental leave disadvantaged men as they did not have the option, available to women who had given birth, of taking maternity leave at a higher rate of pay.

The (EAT) said the tribunal had erred in holding that the PCP did not put men at a disadvantage.

 

Meat company prevents employee using confidential information

A meat company has been granted an injunction preventing a former employee misusing its confidential information about customers and product prices.

The court heard that the company supplied fresh meat to commercial catering customers. One of its employees resigned after working as a sales executive for two-and-a-half years.

During his employment, he had direct contact with customers, taking and processing orders and seeking new clients.

The company alleged that before resigning, he had emailed a list of contact details of customers to his personal email account. It also alleged that he had been misappropriating documents, dealing with their customers on the side and taking cash payments, which he kept.

He was alleged to have impersonated a Food Safety Agency officer to denigrate the company to customers, and to have withheld funds owed to the company.

The judge said the list of customers and prices was confidential information and the employee had owed a duty of trust to the company. There was prima facie evidence of misappropriation and misuse of information to the company’s detriment. The employee might have had grounds to complain about his employment, but that was not an excuse to misuse information.

The court held that there was a serious issued to be tried at a full hearing. Until that hearing took place, it granted an injunction ordering the employee to return all the confidential material and preventing him from misusing it.