Giulia joined Bermans in September 2024 and is a Paralegal in our ABL team based in Manchester.
Giulia assists with a wide range of asset finance and invoice transactions for lenders and financial institutions.
She has a background in banking and finance law sector from her time spent at an Italian law firm, complemented by in-house paralegal experience at a London-based software company.
She completed her law studies at the University of Bologna– Alma Mater Studiorum – in Italy and qualified as an Italian lawyer in 2011.
Outside of work, Giulia enjoys travelling to sunny, nature-rich destinations, as well as attending live music events and spending time with her family.
A warehouse worker has lost his discrimination claim after complaining about his boss having the name ‘Willy’. In Aylmer v Dnata Catering, the Claimant objected to his boss, William McGinty, referring to himself as ‘Willy’. The Claimant asked his boss to avoid using the name because of its other common use as a slang term for penis. He said in an email to his boss: “If you don’t remove it and keep insisting on being called that – I consider it as sexual harassment.” When his complaints were not followed up, he claimed that he had been victimised on the basis that his initial complaints related to sexual harassment.
Contracts of employment often include a provision which states that employers are able to alter an employee’s powers and responsibilities. A recent High Court decision serves as a reminder that such clauses are not without limit, and must be exercised in such a way that trust and confidence in the employment relationship is not undermined.
Indirect discrimination occurs where an employer has a provision, criterion or practice (known as a ‘PCP’) which places people with a certain protected characteristic, and also places the person complaining, at a particular disadvantage when compared to people without that characteristic. An example might include a restrictive working pattern which women (who are acknowledged to statistically take the higher childcare burden) find more difficult to comply with than men. An employee impacted by this work pattern could allege indirect discrimination.
Most employers use standard contractual documentation which is issued to new recruits without much thought. A recent Court of Appeal decision, relating to a commercial contract, serves as a reminder that a lax approach to contractual wording can have big implications, and not just in a commercial context. It is just as important for contracts of employment and settlement agreements. Employers need to make sure they have covered exactly what they want to cover.
It has been confirmed that the Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Act 2023 will not be brought into force this autumn, as originally expected. The Act gave workers with uncertain hours the right to request predictability about their working days and times, the number of hours worked, and the length of their contract. The Act received Royal Assent in September 2023 and ACAS had published a draft Code of Practice on handling requests made under it. This now all looks to have been shelved.
Employees have two distinct claims which they are able to bring in relation to whistleblowing: a claim for whistleblowing detriment under s47B Employment Rights Act 1996, and a claim of automatic unfair dismissal on grounds of whistleblowing. There has been some uncertainty in recent times as to whether an employee who claims that they have been dismissed on grounds of whistleblowing can bring, in addition to an automatic dismissal claim, a claim against their employer that the act of dismissal was a detriment on grounds of whistleblowing. The distinction is an important one. The remedies for each claim are different.
Under Equality Act 2010, employees have protection against discrimination on grounds of ‘religion or belief’. Whether or not a person’s views should be regarded as a ‘protected belief’ is often a contentious preliminary issue. Tribunals are guided by principles set out by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Grainger v Nicholson, something which the EAT had to consider in a recent case involving a belief in English nationalism.
| 
