Andrew Secker is head of Mills & Reeve’s London office, and also leads the firm’s employment team in the capital. He tells The Brief about his longstanding passion for employment law, the growth of the London office, and his opinions on the new Government’s employment law reform plans.

Andrew Secker knew he wanted to be an employment lawyer from an early stage in his career.

While the current head of Mills & Reeve’s London office was studying for his postgraduate diploma in law he wrote his dissertation on the earlier reduction (later to be reversed in 2012) in the qualifying period for ordinary unfair dismissal claims from two years to one.

“The qualifying period was reduced because two years was found to have had an indirectly discriminatory effect on women,” he explains.

“It struck me that, as an employment lawyer, I could do something that has social worth and chimes with my instincts as a historian and my values. I then went to DLA and spent the two years of my training contract convincing them to give me a job in their employment department!”

In total, Secker spent five “fabulous” years with DLA in Sheffield before relocating to Cambridge and joining Mills & Reeve in 2007. In 2017, he moved to the firm’s London office to establish an employment offering there, was made partner in 2019 and, in 2022, was appointed head of office.

Hidden gem

Since taking over an office that, he says, was “a bit of a hidden gem in London” he has focused on increasing its profile, largely through networking, hosting events and engaging in PR, and growing the range of services it offers. In each of the past two years, he continues, revenue generated by the office has increased by 20 per cent and headcount by 15 per cent.

The office currently employs circa 145 people, including 25 partners. Thirteen new partners have either joined as lateral hires or been promoted internally in the past two years so, as Secker puts it, “We are in a really punchy growth mode”.

The London employment team itself is currently five-strong, with plans to add more recently qualified lawyers. Secker says, “We are trying to grow from the bottom up.

We are a real purpose-led, values-driven firm and we offer a real development experience. If we get people in at an early stage of their career, I believe there will be room for them to achieve their personal aspirations while helping the team grow organically – culturally it’s a really good way to grow a team.

Employment practice

Secker’s own employment law practice focuses on advising employers, ranging from start-ups to listed companies. He has a particular niche in technology companies, but also has clients in the construction and media sectors and is doing increasing amounts of work for financial services businesses.

While all sectors are governed by the same laws, the approach to advising clients and resolving disputes can differ in different industries, Secker explains. He says, for example, that individuals in technology firms can be quite combative in performance management scenarios because they tend to deal in objective facts rather than subjective judgements – while the opposite can often be the case in the “creative” sector.

Right to disconnect

Whatever their sector, all employers will soon have to contend with a raft of new employment legislation as the new Labour Government implements its “New Deal for Working People.”

Many elements of this have been well-trailed, but one that Secker believes has not received enough attention – or scrutiny – is the proposed introduction a right to disconnect. This follows similar moves in France, Ireland and Belgium.

Secker says, “The so called ‘right to disconnect’ could have a negative effect on many workers, and actually stifle the flexibility that has enabled many people to juggle to family and work life in recent years.”

Secker has been following conversations on the right to disconnect since 2017 and says that, “In France this right is often only raised in disputes.

It is commonly ignored or forgotten as it just does not reflect how people work. So, it sounds great but is impractical.

“The problem in France, which would be the same in the UK, is that the intent, to help address excessive hours, covers the same ground as the Working Time Regulations. These regulations already impose limits to working hours and compulsory breaks.”

Day-one unfair dismissal

Another proposed reform that concerns Secker is the planned removal of any qualifying service before unfair dismissal claims can be brought.

He says, “I think the current two-years is probably far too long, and is open to abuse because you see people being sacked a week before they get to their two years of service, and there is nothing they can do about it unless the reason for dismissal is one that is automatically unfair, like discrimination related to a protected characteristic.”

Six months would probably be about right, Secker continues, because it mirrors most current probationary periods.

“I know they have said employers can continue to operate probationary periods, but I suspect it would involve all kinds of codified steps, be really unwieldy, and the only people who benefit will be the lawyers” he says.

Unintended consequences

Introducing a day-one right to sue for unfair dismissal could, he says, have the unintended consequence of making employers more cautious and less imaginative in their hiring decisions, thereby reducing diversity in the workforce.

To illustrate his point, he says, “If it all went wrong for me in employment law then in some respects my ideal job would be to become a lecturer in history. But if I were to retrain, apply for a job and be up against someone 20 years younger who already had a couple of years’ experience, then my prospects of getting the job may be affected.

“If the risk in any recruitment decision is greater (as new starters would have protection from unfair dismissal), people will make ‘safer’ recruitment decisions. They’ll be reluctant to look at those retaining but with transferrable skills or who come from a different talent pool from where they may traditionally have recruited from.

So, I am worried that the effect of bringing in a day-one right to sue for unfair dismissal could actually have effects that are indirectly discriminatory.

Whilst being supportive of various proposals aimed to prevent workers being subjected to exploitative practice, including the commitment to ban “exploitative” zero hours contracts (not banning these entirely, as suggested previously), Secker remains sceptical whether these will bring about the change intended.

He concludes, “Bad employers will always abuse whatever employment laws are in place. I think the problem that needs solving is often one of enforcement. Adding new laws which cover similar ground is not going to change this.”

Visit

Mills & Reeve

Connect with Andrew Secker via LinkedIn