THIS IS REFLECTIONS, our weekly roundup of events in the legal and technology sector, covering various topics and interesting learning points for today’s professionals.
If you couldn’t make an event, don’t worry, we probably made it and have all the juicy scoop for your reading pleasure and learning.
Do you have an upcoming event you would like us to know about or attend? OR do you know of one you would like to read about? Send an email to us HERE.
EMPLOYMENT LAW IN THE COVID WORLD
EVENT ONE
The first speaker was Marc Penman, he noted that any employee with symptoms of Covid can go for a test and no UK law recommends carrying out a test on employees by employers. The speaker noted that if employers want to test the employees, they would be doing so from expenses of their own pockets.
On whether employers should require that an employee gets tested, he noted that some factors should be considered such as the need to minimize and help break of Covid.
On whether or not employers can demand a test, the speaker noted that it should bother down on circumstances such as if an employee exhibits symptoms of Covid, then the employer can demand that a test should be carried out.
On actions that can be taken when an employee refuses to take a Covid test, the speaker noted that disciplinary actions can be taken, however, employers should listen to the reasons of employees on why they do not want to take the test.
The speaker noted that employers should be mindful of data protection and discrimination issues when the test is carried out he noted that testing gives a number of issues and employers have to think a lot about these factors.
The second speaker Alex Obrien noted that if employers require employees to return to the workplace, they have to consider some factors such as if it is a reasonable direction, risk of claims and constructive dismissal & discrimination claims for those who wouldn’t be willing to resume physically and also reintegration issues.
The speaker noted that where employees do not want to return to the office, employers should consider how to minimize the risks of employees taking such stance, flexible working requests and disciplinary actions. The speaker noted that new work models have come to stay.
EVENT TWO
WEBINAR REPORT ON BLOCKCHAIN + ANTITRUST
ORGANIZED BY THE CAMBRIDGE BLOCKCHAIN SOCIETY
The meeting was held on Wednesday, 27th October 2021, and began at 5:30 pm prompt. The panel discussion included Dr. Thibault Schrepel, LL.M., an Associate Professor of Law at VU Amsterdam University, and a Faculty Affiliate at Stanford University CodeX Center; Dr. OkeogheneOdudu who is a Fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and Deputy Director of the Center for European Legal Studies and Concurrences and Dr. Ann Sofie Cloots, a lecturer of Law in Digital Assets at Cambridge’s Law Faculty and the Legal Exert of the Cambridge Blockchain Society.
The goal of the webinar was to explore the relationship between blockchain and antitrust and whether or not both should cooperate for the advancement of law and technology.
Dr. Thibault Schrepel who was the chief speaker began the webinar by encouraging participants to take an online poll on whether cooperation between blockchain and antitrust should be actively pursued. The poll returned an 82% Yes and 18% No, indicating that most participants welcomed the idea that cooperation between blockchain and antitrust should be encouraged.
Dr. Thibault who is an advocate for the cooperation of the same went on to explain that generally, cooperation can come in various forms depending on the nature of the relationship between laws and technologies. For instance, technology could systematically oppose the law or they oppose and complement each other in different aspects or they pursue the same goal.
He went on to explain how that for ages private companies have been pursuing a different goal than antitrust agencies which is why many tech giants today are at the heart of many recent cases (litigation). He states that this is because most tech companies are after profit maximization whereas antitrust aims to protect consumers by ensuring the proper functioning of markets, making both at loggerheads. However, with antitrust law and blockchain, Dr. Thibault was convinced that both are complementary as antitrust law protects the competitive process by eliminating forms of coercive control while blockchain seeks to eliminate centralized and vertical forms of control and even disrupt such structures. So technically, antitrust seeks to constrain the exercise of power through the rule of law while blockchain seeks to do so through technical means.
He, therefore, advocated that the cooperation of blockchain and antitrust can maximize their common goal to a degree that both cannot achieve separately and that a non-cooperative application would have the effect of reducing blockchain’s usefulness, giving the impression that blockchain is not a valuable ally in achieving the common aim. He concluded that rather than the classical conception of Blockchain vs. Antitrust law, Blockchain + Antitrust law should be encouraged.
The webinar came to an end with a question and answer session where all panelists addressed the contributions and reservations of participants regarding Dr. Thibault’s position. Questions such as whether blockchain will create a problem that antitrust law cannot deal with or antitrust law will have to change its approach to accommodate blockchain and what risk blockchain will pose were raised. While Dr. Thibault acknowledged that there were legitimate fears regarding the cooperation of law and antitrust, he was however convinced that the benefits outweighed the risks. Some participants were however of the position that the speed of innovation cannot be measured or preempted and therefore the cooperation between blockchain and antitrust would be too much of a risk that could cause greater damage.
The meeting ended at 7:50 pm.
