text:
United Kingdom labour law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Wikidea (talk | contribs) at 11:16, 21 August 2017 (→Health and safety). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 11:16, 21 August 2017 by Wikidea (talk | contribs) (→Health and safety)
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
In the UK in 2012, of the total working population 29.6 million people were employed, there was 8.1% unemployment, and 73.4% without union membership. The average income was £25,498, and the average working week was 41.4 hours.[1]
United Kingdom labour law regulates the relations between workers, employers and trade unions.[2] People at work in the UK benefit from a minimum charter of employment rights,[3] which are found in various Acts, Regulations, common law and equity. This includes the right to a minimum wage of £7.50 for over 25-year-olds under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.[4] The Working Time Regulations 1998 give the right to 28 days paid holidays, breaks from work, and attempts to limit excessively long working hours. The Employment Rights Act 1996 gives the right to leave for child care, and the right to request flexible working patterns. The Pensions Act 2008 gives the right to be automatically enrolled in a basic occupational pension, whose funds must be protected according to the Pensions Act 1995.
To get fair labour standards beyond the minimum, the most important right is to collectively participate in decisions about how an enterprise is managed. This works through collective bargaining, underpinned by the right to strike, and a growing set of rights of direct workplace participation. Workers must be able to vote for trustees of their occupational pensions under the Pensions Act 2004. In some enterprises, such as universities,[5] staff can vote for the directors of the organisation. In enterprises with over 50 staff, workers must be informed and consulted about major economic developments or difficulties.[6] This happens through a steadily increasing number of work councils, which usually must be requested by staff. However, the UK remains behind European standards in requiring all employees to have a vote for their company's board of directors, alongside private sector shareholders, or government authorities in the public sector.[7] Collective bargaining, between democratically organised trade unions and the enterprise's management, has been seen as a "single channel" for individual workers to counteract the employer's abuse of power when it dismisses staff or fix the terms of work. Collective agreements are ultimately backed up by a trade union's right to strike: a fundamental requirement of democratic society in international law. Under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 strikes are basically lawful if they are "in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute".
As well as having rights for fair treatment, the Equality Act 2010 requires that people are treated equally, unless there is a good justification, based on their gender, race, sexual orientation, beliefs and age. To combat social exclusion, employers must positively accommodate the needs of disabled people. Part-time staff, agency workers, and people on fixed-term contracts are treated generally equally compared to full-time or permanent staff.[8] To tackle unemployment, all employees are entitled to reasonable notice before dismissal after a qualifying period of a month, after two years they can only be dismissed for a fair reason, and are entitled to a redundancy payment if their job was no longer economically necessary.[9] If an enterprise is bought or outsourced, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 require that employees' terms cannot be worsened without a good economic, technical or organisational reason. The purpose of these rights is to ensure people have dignified living standards, whether or not they have the relative bargaining power to get good terms and conditions in their contract.[10]
Contents
[hide]
1 History
2 Employment rights and duties
2.1 Scope of protection
2.2 Contract of employment
2.3 Health and safety
2.4 Wage regulation
2.5 Working time and child care
2.6 Occupational pensions
2.7 Income tax and insurance
2.8 Civil liberties at work
3 Workplace participation
3.1 Trade unions
3.2 Collective bargaining
3.3 Collective action
3.4 Information and consultation
3.5 Direct participation
4 Equality
4.1 Discrimination
4.2 Justification
4.3 Disability and positive action
4.4 Atypical work
4.5 Free movement and immigration
5 Job security
5.1 Wrongful dismissal
5.2 Unfair dismissal
5.3 Redundancy
5.4 Undertaking transfers and insolvency
5.5 Unemployment
6 Enforcement and tribunals
7 International labour law
8 See also
9 Notes
10 References
11 External links
History[edit]
Main articles: History of labour law in the United Kingdom and History of English land law
Wat Tyler, leader of the Peasants' Revolt is killed in front of King Richard II.
"It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, a merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate."
A Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776) Book I, ch 8, §12
Labour law in its modern form is primarily a creation of the last three decades of the 20th century. However, as a system of regulating the employment relationship, labour law has existed since people worked. In feudal England, the first significant labour laws followed the Black Death. Given the shortage of workers and consequent price rises the Ordinance of Labourers 1349 and the Statute of Labourers 1351 attempted to suppress sources of wage inflation by banning workers organisation, creating offences for any able-bodied person that did not work, and fixing wages at pre-plague levels. Ultimately this led to the Peasants' Revolt of 1381, which was in turn suppressed and followed up with the Statute of Cambridge 1388, which banned workers from moving around the country. Yet conditions were improving as serfdom was breaking down. One sign was the beginning of the more enlightened Truck Acts, dating from 1464, that required that workers be paid in cash and not kind. In 1772 slavery was declared to be illegal in R v Knowles, ex parte Somersett,[11] and the subsequent Slave Trade Act 1807 and Slavery Abolition Act 1833 enforced prohibition throughout the British Empire.[12] The turn into the 19th century coincided with the start of the massive boom in production. Gradually people's relationship to their employers moved from one of status - formal subordination and deference - to contract whereby people were formally free to choose their work.[13] However, freedom of contract did not, as the economist Adam Smith observed, change a worker's factual dependency on employers.
As its height, the businesses and corporations of Britain's industrial revolution organised half the world's production across a third of the globe's surface and a quarter of its population. Joint Stock Companies, building railways, canals and factories, manufacturing household goods, connecting telegraphs, distributing coal, formed the backbone of the laissez faire model of commerce. Industrialisation also meant greater urbanisation, and inevitably miserable conditions in the factories. The Factory Acts dating from 1803 required minimum standards on hours and conditions of working children. But people were also attempting to organise more formally. Initially, trade unions were suppressed, particularly following the French Revolution of 1789 under the Combination Act 1799. The Master and Servant Act 1823 and subsequent updates stipulated that all workmen were subject to criminal penalties for disobedience, and calling for strikes was punished as an "aggravated" breach of contract. But then the position was slowly liberalised and through the Trade Union Act 1871 and the Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act 1875 trade unions were legitimised.[14] Toward the turn of the 20th century, in Mogul Steamship Co Ltd v McGregor, Gow & Co,[15] the House of Lords emphasised that businesses should be free to organise into trade associations in the same way that employees organised into unions. However, with growing unrest and industrial action the House of Lords changed its mind. At the turn of the 20th century he notorious judgment of Taff Vale Railway Co v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants,[16] made unions liable in economic tort for the costs of industrial action. Although a combination of employers in a company could dismiss employees without notice, a combination of employees in a trade union were punished for withdrawing their labour. The case led trade unions to form a Labour Representation Committee, which then became the UK Labour Party, to lobby for the reversal of the law. After their landslide victory in the 1906 general election, the Liberals, among whom David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill were rising stars, embarked on significant welfare reforms. These included the Trade Disputes Act 1906, which laid down the essential principle of collective labour law that any strike "in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute" is immune from civil law sanctions. The Old Age Pensions Act 1908 provided pensions for retirees. The Trade Boards Act 1909 created industrial panels to fix minimum wages and the National Insurance Act 1911 levied a fee to insure people got benefits in the event of unemployment.
Amid mass demonstrations across Germany, in 1919 the Versailles Treaty was signed. Part XIII established the International Labour Organization, recalling (in stark contrast to the other treaty's terms[17]) that "peace can be established only if it is based on social justice".[18]
During World War One the brutality of the Western Front demanded the participation of every available person and resource. As women took over traditional "men's jobs" the Suffragette movement gained momentum. Before the war's conclusion, the Representation of the People Act 1918 gave universal suffrage to men over age 21 and women over 28. A new beginning was promised by the victors to their people. The Versailles Treaty created the International Labour Organization to draw up common standards between countries, for as it said, "peace can be established only if it is based on social justice", and echoed the US Clayton Act 1914 in pronouncing that "labour should not be regarded merely as a commodity or an article of commerce".[19] But the international system remained disjointed as the United States Congress withheld its approval to join the League of Nations. Within the UK the postwar settlement was to make a home fit for heroes. Whitley Councils extended the Trade Boards Act 1909 system to Joint Industrial Councils that encouraged (non legally binding) fair wage agreements,[20] while the Ministry of Labour actively organised and advised the growth of trade unions.[21] This was based on a theory of collective bargaining, agreement or action, advocated by Sidney Webb and Beatrice Webb in Industrial Democracy to remedy the inequality of bargaining power of workers.[22] Without legal force behind collective agreements, the law remained in a state of collective laissez faire, encouraging voluntarism for agreement and dispute settlement between industrial partners. The 1920s and 1930s were economically volatile. In 1926 a General Strike against coal miners' pay cuts paralysed the country, though was broken by Winston Churchill, by then the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Labour Party had formed Parliamentary majorities in 1924 and 1929, but achieved little in the way of reform, particularly after the onset of the Great Depression.
By the Second World War and the Labour government of Clement Attlee, trade union membership was well established and collective agreements covered over 80 per cent of the workforce. With the British Empire in rapid dissolution, immigration from Commonwealth countries, and record levels of female workplace participation the character of Britain's workforce was changing fast. Though the common law was sometimes comparatively progressive,[23] sometimes not,[24] the first statutes to prohibit discrimination focused on gender and race emerged in the 1960s as the Civil Rights Act was passed in the United States. Discrimination in employment (as in consumer or public service access) was formally prohibited on grounds of race in 1965,[25] gender in 1975, disability in 1995, sexual orientation and religion in 2003 and age in 2006.[26] A complicated and inconsistent jamboree of Acts and statutory instruments was placed into a comprehensive code in the Equality Act 2010. Much discrimination law is now applicable throughout the European Union, to which the UK acceded in 1972. Although labour laws in the early European Treaties and case law were scant,[27] the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty brought employment rights squarely into the EU's jurisprudence. Meanwhile, starting from the Contracts of Employment Act 1963, workers gained a growing list of minimum statutory rights, such as the right to reasonable notice before a fair dismissal and a redundancy payment.[28] Labour governments through the 1960s and 1970s were troubled by reform of the unwieldy trade union system. Despite producing reports such as In Place of Strife and the Report of the committee of inquiry on industrial democracy[29] which would have made unions accountable to their members created more direct workplace participation, reform did not take place.
The UK miners' strike (1984–1985) was a bitter confrontation between the Thatcher government and coal mine workers, which has left resentment till today.
From 1979, a new Conservative government took a strongly sceptical policy to all forms of labour law and regulation. During the 1980s ten major Acts gradually reduced the autonomy of trade unions and the legality of industrial action.[30] Reforms to the internal structure of unions mandated that representatives be elected and a ballot is taken before a strike, that no worker could strike in sympathetic secondary action with workers with a different employer, and that employers could not run a closed shop system of requiring all workers to join the recognised union. The wage councils were dismantled. A public campaign against the merits of unions paralleled the decline of membership and collective agreement coverage to under 40 per cent. In addition, the government opted out of the EU Social Chapter in the Maastricht Treaty. In 1997 the new Labour government brought the UK into the EU's Social Chapter, which has served as the source for most reform in UK law since that time. Domestic led reform was minimal. The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 established a country-wide minimum wage, but did not attempt to reinvigorate the Wage Board system. The Employment Relations Act 1999 introduced a 60-page procedure requiring employers to compulsorily recognise and bargain with a union holding support among workers, though union membership remained at a level steadily declining below 30 per cent.
Employment rights and duties[edit]
All UK workers enjoy a minimal charter of employment rights,[31] but compared to the EU average have longer working hours, more unequal pay, less time off for child care, and are less likely to have an occupational pension.
See also: European labour law, German labour law, French labour law, Australian labour law, Canadian labour law, Indian labour law, South African labour law, and US labor law
UK labour law's primary concern, particularly under the Employment Rights Act 1996, is to ensure that every working person has a minimum charter of rights in their workplace.[32] Traditionally it draws a divide between self-employed people, who are free to contract for any terms they wish, and employees, whose employers are responsible for complying with labour laws. UK courts and statutes, however, use a number of different terms for different rights, including "worker", "employee", "jobholder", "apprentice" or someone with an "employment relation". A "worker", for example, is entitled to a minimum wage of £7.50 per hour,[33] 28 statutory minimum days of holiday, enrolment in a pension plan, a safe system of work, not to mention the right to equal treatment and anti-discrimination that also apply to consumers and public services.[34] An "employee" has all those rights, and also the right to a written contract of employment, time off for pregnancy or child care, reasonable notice before a fair dismissal and a redundancy payment, and the duty to contribute to the National Insurance fund and pay income tax.[35] The scope of the terms "worker", "employee", and others, are more or less left to the courts to construe according to the context of its use in a statute,[36] but someone is essentially entitled to more rights if they are in a weaker position and thus lack bargaining power. English courts view an employment contract as involving a relation of mutual trust and confidence,[37] which allows them to develop and enlarge the remedies available for workers and employers alike when one side acts out of bad faith.
Scope of protection[edit]
[show]
v
t
e
Workplace protection cases
Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden-Wurttenberg (1986)
Pfeiffer v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz (2005)
Employment Rights Act 1996 s
Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011]
Jivraj v Hashwani [2011]
Clyde & Co LLP v Bates van Winkelhof [2014]
Cassidy v Minister of Health [1951] 2 KB 343
Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v SS for Pensions [1968] 2 QB 497
Market Invest Ltd v Minister for Social Security [1969] 2 QB 173
O’Kelly v Trusthouse Forte plc [1983] ICR 730
Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd v Gardiner [1984] ICR 612
Lee Ting Sang v Chung Chi-Keung [1990]
Hall v Lorimer [1993]
Lane v Shire Roofing Co (Oxford) Ltd [1995]
McMeechan v SS for Employment [1996]
Carmichael v National Power plc [1999]
Dacas v Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd [2004]
Muscat v Cable & Wireless Plc [2006]
James v Greenwich LBC [2008]
Muschett v H M Prison Service [2010]
see Scope of UK labour law protection
See also: Worker, Employee, and Inequality of bargaining power
As yet, the UK has not consolidated a single statutory definition of the people to whom employment rights and duties apply. Statute and case law, both domestic and European, use 2 main definitions (employee and worker), and approximately 3 other minor types (jobholder, apprentice, and someone with an employment relation). The EU does have one consolidated definition of a ‘worker’, which is someone who has a contract for work in return for a wage, or an indirect quid pro quo (as in a communal cooperative), and also stands as the more vulnerable party to the contract.[38] This reflects the kernel of classical labour law theory, that an employment contract is one infused with "inequality of bargaining power",[39] and stands as a justification for mandating additional terms to what might otherwise be agreed under a system of total freedom of contract.
Sidney and Beatrice Webb, in their book Industrial Democracy argued that because workers' inequality of bargaining power meant they could not contract for it themselves, law should create a "national minimum" of workplace rights, with trade unions to secure a living wage.
In the UK an ‘employee’ has all available rights (all the rights of a ‘worker’ but also child care, retirement and job security rights). The meaning is explicitly left to the common law under the main statute, the Employment Rights Act 1996 section 230, and has developed according to the classical 19th century contrast between a contract ‘of service’ and one ‘for services’. The government may also pass secondary legislation to include specific groups of people into the ‘employee’ category.[40] While the classical test was that an employee was subject to a sufficient degree of ‘control’,[41] new forms of work where people have greater autonomy in how to perform their jobs, meant that, particularly from the mid-20th century,[42] additional tests of employment were developed. Different expressions were used, including how much one could said to be ‘integrated’ into the business,[43] or whether one metaphorically wore the ‘badge’ of the organisation. The focus was said to be on ‘economic reality’, and form over substance. Multiple relevant factors would include how much the employee was ‘controlled’, if they owned their tools, if they had the chance of profit, or bore the risk of loss.[44] But in the late 1970s and 1980s, some courts began to speak of a new test of ‘mutuality of obligation’. The dominant view of this, now approved by the UK Supreme Court,[45] was merely that workers exchanged work for a wage: an irreducible core of an employment contract.[46] Another view stated that the employment relationship had to be one where there was an ongoing obligation to offer and accept work.[47] This led to cases where employers, typically of people on low wages and little legal understanding, pleaded that they had only hired a person on a casual basis and thus should not be entitled to the major job security rights. However, the leading case, Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher decided by a unanimous Supreme Court in 2011, adopted the view that mutuality of obligation is the consideration of work for a wage,[48] brought the definition of an employment contract in line with that in used in the EU. Confirming that employment contracts are one of a specific type, and separate from commercial agreements,[49] Lord Clarke held that an exchange of work for a wage was essential. The private "true" intentions of the parties were not as important as the reality, because employment began in the context of an unequal bargaining relation. As he put it,[50]
“ ... the relative bargaining power of the parties must be taken into account in deciding whether the terms of any written agreement in truth represent what was agreed and the true agreement will often have to be gleaned from all the circumstances of the case, of which the written agreement is only a part. This may be described as a purposive approach to the problem. If so, I am content with that description. ”
This meant that a group of car valeters, although described in their contracts as being self-employed, with a right to substitute another person to do their work, and professed to have no obligation to undertake work, were entitled to a minimum wage and paid leave. The contract terms could be disregarded because they did not represent the reality of the situation.[51] In addition, a ‘worker’ is defined in ERA 1996 section 230 as someone with a contract of employment or who personally performs work and is not a client or a customer. This concept has greater scope, and protects more people, than does the term ‘employee’. This class of person is entitled to a safe system of work, a minimum wage and limits on working time, as well as discrimination and trade union rights, but not job security, child care and retirement rights. This concept thus reaches up to protect people who are quasi-self-employed professionals, such as partners of a law firm.[52] People will also be workers but not employees when they are not so vulnerable, and relatively independent from their employers, such as home cleaners, music teachers who visit a student home, or independent taxi cab drivers. However, if they are employed through an agency, they will be employees in relation to the agency. Though not entitled to employee rights, these workers may form trade unions and take collective action under UK, EU and international law, to protect their interests.
Contract of employment[edit]
[show]
v
t
e
Employment contract cases
Johnson v Unisys Ltd [2001]
Gisda Cyf v Barratt [2010]
Employment Information Directive
Employment Rights Act 1996 ss
Devonald v Rosser & Sons [1906] 2 KB 728
Sagar v Ridehalgh & Sons Ltd [1931] 1 Ch 310
Wiluszynski v Tower Hamlets LBC [1989] ICR 439
SS for Employment v ASLEF (No 2) [1972] ICR 19
System Floors (UK) Ltd v Daniel [1982] ICR 54
Scally v Southern Health Board [1992] 1 AC 294
Crossley v Faithful & Gould Ltd [2004]
UCTA 1977 ss
Keen v Commerzbank AG [2006]
Johnstone v Bloomsbury Health Authority [1991] 2 All ER 293
Dryden v Greater Glasgow Health Board [1992] IRLR 469
French v Barclays Bank plc [1998]
Alexander v Standard Telephones Ltd (No 2) [1991] IRLR 287
TULRCA 1992 ss 179-180
Kaur v MG Rover Group Ltd [2004]
Malone v British Airways plc [2010] `
see Employment contract in English law
See also: Employment contract in English law, English contract law, and Employment contract
Once a person's work contract is categorised, the courts have specific rules for determining, beyond the statutory minimum charter of rights, what are its terms and conditions. Analogous rules for incorporation of terms, and implication terms exist as in the ordinary law of contract. However, in Gisda Cyf v Barratt, Lord Kerr emphasised that if it affects statutory rights, the process of construction is one that must be "intellectually segregated" from the general law of contract, because of the relation of dependency an employee has.[53] In this case, Ms Barratt was told her employment was terminated in a letter that she opened 3 days after its arrival. When, 3 months and 2 days after arrival, she lodged an unfair dismissal claim, the employer argued it was time barred on the ground that in ordinary contract law one is bound by a notice when a reasonable person would have read a message. The Supreme Court held that Ms Barratt was in time for a claim because she was only bound by the notice when she actually read it. The applicable in employment was different, given the purpose of employment law to protect the employee. From formation to termination, employment contracts are to be construed in the context of statutory protection of dependent workers.
Every employee is entitled to a written statement of their employment contract,[54] which will usually incorporate the workplace collective agreement, and must follow, or be better than the minimum statutory rights.
The terms of employment are all those things promised to an employee when work begins, so long as they do not contravene statutory minimum rights. In addition, terms can be incorporated by reasonable notice, for instance by referring to a staff handbook in a written employment agreement,[55] or even in a document in a filing cabinet next to the staff handbook.[56] While without express wording they are presumed not binding between the union and employer,[57] a collective agreement may give rise to individual rights. The test applied by the courts is to ask loosely whether its terms are ‘apt’ for incorporation, and not statements of ‘policy’ or ‘aspiration’. Where the collective agreement’s words are clear, a "last in first out" rule was held in one case to potentially qualify, but in another case a clause purporting to censure compulsory redundancies was held to be binding ‘in honour’ only.[58]
[show]
v
t
e
Construed employment terms
Wilsons and Clyde Coal Ltd v English [1937] UKHL 2
Wilson v Racher [1974] ICR 428
Mahmud and Malik v BCCI SA [1997] UKHL 23
Transco plc v O'Brien [2002] EWCA Civ 379
Mallone v BPB Industries plc [2002] EWCA Civ 126
Secretary of State for Employment v ASLEF (No 2) [1972] ICR 19
British Telecommunications plc v Ticehurst [1992] ICR 383
Nottingham University v Fishel [2000] EWHC QB 221
ERA 1996 s 98A ff
Hall v Woolston Hall Leisure Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 170
Employment Rights Act 1996 s 13
Rigby v Ferodo Ltd [1988] ICR 29
Hollister v National Farmers’ Union [1979] ICR 542
Henry v London Greater Transport Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 488
Robertson v British Gas Corp [1983] ICR 351
Cresswell v Board of Inland Revenue [1984] ICR 508
Bateman v ASDA Stores Ltd [2010] IRLR 370 (EAT)
ERA 1996 ss 210-212
Cornwall County Council v Prater [2006] EWCA Civ 102
Ford v Warwickshire CC [1983] ICR 273
Duncombe v SS for Children, Schools, Families [2011] UKSC 14
see Employment contract in English law
In addition to statutory rights, expressly agreed terms and incorporated terms, the contractual hallmark of the employment relation is the series of standardised implied terms (or terms implied in law) that accompany it. First of all, and in addition to individualised implied terms that the courts construe to reflect the reasonable expectations of the parties,[59] the courts have long held that employees are owed additional and beneficial obligations, such as a safe system of work,[60] and payment of wages even when the employer has no work to offer.[61] Reflecting more recent priorities, the House of Lords held employers have a duty to inform their employees of their workplace pension rights,[62] although a lower court stopped short of requiring employers to give advice on qualifying for workplace disability benefits.[63] The key implied term is the duty of good faith, or "mutual trust and confidence". This is a flexible concept that is applied in a broad variety of circumstances leading to remedies in damages or an injunction. Examples include requiring that employers do not act in an authoritarian manner,[64] do not call employees names behind their back,[65] do not treat workers unequally when upgrading pay,[66] do not run the company as a front for international crime,[67] or do not exercise discretion to award a bonus capriciously.[68] There has been disagreement among judges about the extent to which the core implied term of mutual trust and confidence can be 'contracted out of', with the House of Lords having held that the parties may when they are "free" to do so, while others approach the question as a matter of construction of the agreement which is within exclusive judicial competence to define.[69]
The second, and older hallmark of the employment contract is that employees are bound to follow their employers’ instructions while at work, so long as that does not contravene statute or their agreed terms. Every employment relation leaves the employer with a residue of discretion, historically expressed as the ‘master-servant’ relationship. Today, in practice, this leaves the employer with the ability to vary the way work is done in accordance with business need.[70] The courts have allowed this to continue, so long as it does not contradict a contract’s express terms, which always require an employee’s consent,[71] or renegotiation of a collective agreement.[72] The status of ‘flexibility clauses’, purporting to allow employers the discretion to vary any contract term has been contested, as it will often enable abuse of power that the common law controls.[73] The limits of the courts’ tolerance for such practices are evident if they touch procedures for accessing justice,[74] or potentially if they would contravene the duty of mutual trust and confidence.
Health and safety[edit]
[show]
v
t
e
Health and safety sources
Turberville v Stampe (1697) 91 ER 1072
Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co v English [1938] AC 57
Johnstone v Bloomsbury Health Authority [1992] QB 333
Walker v Northumberland CC [1994]
Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd [1998]
Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001]
Hewison v Meridian Shipping Ltd [2002]
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002]
Barker v Corus [2006]
Compensation Act 2006 s 3
Chandler v Cape plc [2011] EWHC 951 (QB)
Health and Safety Framework Directive
Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992
Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999
R v Associated Octel Co Ltd [1996]
Factories Act 1961
Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1967
Employer's Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969
Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002
see UK labour law
Main articles: Occupational safety and health, UK enterprise law, English tort law, and Insurance in the UK
Every employer must provide a "safe system of work". As the industrial revolution developed, accidents was labour law's first target. The Factories Acts, from 1802, required minimum standards in workplace cleanliness, ventilation, fencing machinery. It restricted child labour and limited the working day. They targeted mines, or textile mills, before the Factories Act 1961 spread to all "factories": where an article is made or changed, or animals are kept and slaughtered.[75] The Employer's Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969 made employers automatically liable for equipment with defects supplied by third parties. Because individual employees tend not to litigate, to ensure enforcement, there are inspectors under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, enforced by the Health and Safety Executive. The HSE can delegate enforcement to local authorities. Inspectors have the power to investigate and require changes to workplace systems. In addition, HSWA 1974 section 2 foresees that employees will set up their own workplace committees, elected by the employees and with the power to codetermine health and safety matters with management. Health and safety regulations remain in line with the European-wide harmonised requirements of the Health and Safety Directive.[76]
Nye Bevan, Minister of Health when the NHS was founded.
The most important protection for people's health has been the National Health Service, founded by the NHS Act 1946.[77] The National Health Service Act 2006 entitles everyone to health care in the UK, and is funded through the tax system. If people are injured at work, they may be treated regardless of their means to pay. There is also the right, under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 to statutory sick pay.[78] People at work can also sue for compensatory damages whenever they are injured and employers have breached a statutory duty. They can claim for the injury itself, loss of income, and relatives or dependents may recover small sums to reflect distress.[79] Employers are vicariously liable for all agents acting for them in the "course of employment" whenever their actions have a "close connection" to the job, and even if it breaks an employer's rules.[80] An employer only has a defence if an employee, on a "frolic of his own", was not placed by an employer in a position to cause harm. Under the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969, employers must take out insurance for all injury costs. Insurance companies may not their employee to recover costs unless there is fraud.[81] However, until the mid-20th century there were a series of major limitations. First, until 1937, if an employee was injured by a co-worker, the doctrine of common employment, the employer could only be liable if it was shown they were personally liable by carelessness in selecting staff.[82] The House of Lords changed this in Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English,[83] holding an employer had a non-delegable duty of care for all employees. Lord Wright held there were "fundamental obligations of a contract of employment... for which employers are absolutely responsible". The second old restriction was that, until 1891, volenti non fit injuria meant workers were assumed to voluntarily accept the dangers of their work by agreeing to their contracts of employment.[84] Only if an employee callously ignores clear directions of the employer will he be taken to have voluntarily assumed the risk, like in ICI Ltd v Shatwell[85] where an experience quarry shotfirer said he "could not be bothered" to wait 10 minutes before setting of a detonation, and blew up his brother. Third, even if a worker was slightly at fault, until 1945 such contributory negligence precluded the whole of the claim. Now the court will only reduce damages by the amount the employee contributed to their own injury.[86] The fourth defence available to employers, which still exists, is ex turpi causa non oritur actio, that if the employee was engaged in any illegal activity they may not claim compensation for injuries. In Hewison v Meridian Shipping Services Pte Ltd[87] Mr Hewison concealed his epilepsy so that he could work offshore was technically guilty of illegally attempting to gain a pecuniary advantage by deception under the Theft Act 1968 section 16. After being struck in the head by a defective gangplank he suffered worse fits than before, but the Court of Appeal, by a majority, held his illegal act precluded any compensation.
19th century regulation limited child labour and working time in factories and mines, but employers were not always liable for accidents until 1937.
The common law of tort also remains particularly relevant for the type of liability an employer has where there is scientific uncertainty about the cause of an injury. In asbestos disease cases, a worker may have been employed with at a number of jobs where he was exposed to asbestos, but his injury cannot with certainty be traced to any one. Although he may be able to sue all of them, a number may have already gone insolvent. In Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd[88] the House of Lords held that if any employer had materially increased the risk of harm to the worker, they could would be jointly and severally liable and could be sued for the full sum, leaving it up to them to seek contribution from others and thus the risk of other businesses' insolvency. For a brief period, in Barker v Corus[89] the House of Lords then decided that employers would only be liable on a proportionate basis, thus throwing the risk of employers' insolvency back onto workers. Immediately Parliament passed the Compensation Act 2006 section 3 to reverse the decision on its facts. It has also been held in Chandler v Cape plc,[90] in 2011, that even though a subsidiary company is the direct employer of a worker, a parent company will owe a duty of care. Thus shareholders may not be able to hide behind the corporate veil to escape their obligations for the health and safety of the workforce.
Wage regulation[edit]
See also: Wage regulation, National Minimum Wage Act 1998, and Tax credit
[show]
v
t
e
Sources on wages
National Minimum Wage Act 1998
National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999
Employment Act 2008 ss 8-12
Edmonds v Lawson [2000]
James v Redcats (Brands) Ltd [2007]
British Nursing Assn v Inland Revenue [2002]
Scottbridge Construction Ltd v Wright [2002]
Walton v Ind Living Organisation [2003]
McCartney v Oversley House Management [2006]
Leisure Employment Ltd v HMRC [2007]
Nerva v United Kingdom (2003) 36 EHRR 4
see Minimum wage in the United Kingdom
Since 1998, the United Kingdom has fixed a national minimum wage,[91] and sets outer limits on working time for virtually all workers. Direct wage and working time regulation is a comparatively recent phenomenon, as it was traditionally left to collective bargaining to achieve "a fair day's wage for a fair day's work". The Truck Acts were the earliest wage regulations whose provisions have survived,[92] requiring workment to be paid in money, and not kind. Now, the Employment Rights Act 1996 section 13 stipulates that employers can only dock employees’ wages (e.g. for missing stock) if the employee has consented to deductions in writing. This, however, does not cover industrial action,[93] so following 18th century common law on part performance of work, employees who refused to 3 out of 37 hours a week in minor workplace disobedience, had their pay cut for the full 37.[94] From the Trade Boards Act 1909,[95] the UK had set minimum wages according to the specific needs of different sectors of work. But this system was eroded through the 1980s and eventually repealed in 1993.[96] One wages council that survived was the Agricultural Wages Board, established under the Agricultural Wages Act 1948, however it was abolished in England in October 2013, though boards still operate for Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Modern economic theory suggests an excessive minimum wage may raise unemployment as it fixes a price above demand for labour, although a reasonable minimum wage enhances growth because labour markets are persistently monopsonistic and when poorer workers have more to spend it stimulates effective aggregate demand for goods and services.[97]
To bring the UK back into compliance with basic standards in international law,[98] the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 was introduced. The minimum wage takes effect in every worker's contract. Workers do not need to show "mutuality of obligation" or any other requirement except that they personally perform work for a wage and is not a client.[99] One curious exclusion, however, is a pupil barrister who in Edmonds v Lawson[100] was held to not be "working" but be "conscientious in receiving instruction". The minimum wage rate is reset annually after guidance from the Low Pay Commission, and on 1 October 2014 it stood at £6.50 for over-21-year-olds, £5.13 for 18- to 20-year-olds, £3.79 for under-18-year-olds finished with compulsory education. Since 2010, the minimum was cut for "apprentices", and stood in 2014 at £2.73.[101] The National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999[102] spell out the details of how the minimum wage should be calculated. Total pay received is divided by the hours actually worked over an average "pay reference period" of one month.[103] This definition has given rise to litigation in cases where a worker can stay at home but must answer phone calls, is allowed to rest or sleep during shifts, or must make themselves available "on call" over a long period. Generally speaking, it is irrelevant whether one is at home or not. If a worker is given sleeping facilities and is not awake, the minimum wage need not be paid.[104] And if a worker is "on call", then this time still counts at work if the worker is bound to stay within the vicinity of the workplace.[105] However, an exception in regulation 28 allows an employer to agree with a worker what the hours worked actually are, if they would ordinarily be unmeasured. In Walton v Independent Living Organisation Ltd[106] a worker who cared for a young epileptic lady had to be on call 24 hours a day, 3 days a week, but could do her own activities outside tasks such as going shopping, making meals and cleaning. Her company made an agreement with her that her tasks took 6 hours and 50 minutes a day, which resulted in her £31.40 allowance meeting the minimum wage. Certain deductions may be made including £4.51 per day for any accommodation the employer provides, though extra bills, such as for electricity, should not ordinarily be charged.[107] The minimum wage can be enforced individually through an ERA 1996 section 13 claim for a shortfall of wages in a Tribunal.[108] A worker may not be subjected to any detriment for enquiring, or requesting records or complaining about it.[109] However, because many workers will not be informed about how to do this, or have the resources, a primary enforcement mechanism is through inspections and compliance notices issued by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs.[110] A remedy of up to 80 times the minimum wage is available to the worker and HMRC can enforce a penalty of twice the minimum wage per worker per day.[111]
Working time and child care[edit]
Main articles: Working time in the United Kingdom, Working time, Work-life balance, and Child care in the United Kingdom
[show]
v
t
e
Sources on working time
Working Time Directive 2003/88/EC
Working Time Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/1833)
SIMAP v CSCGV (2000) C-303/98
Pfeiffer v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz (2005) C-397/01
Commission v United Kingdom (2006) C-484/04
R v DTI ex parte BECTU (2001) C-173/99
Caulfield v Marshalls Clay Ltd (2006) C-131/04
Stringer v HMRC (2009) C-520/06
Landeshauptstadt Kiel v Jaeger (2003) C-151/02
Barber v RJB Mining (UK) Ltd [1999] ICR 679
Employment Rights Act 1996 ss 50-70
Russell v Transocean Int Resources Ltd [2011] UKSC 57
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (c 22)
see Working time in the United Kingdom
The UK has no explicit statute for minimum hours, although zero hours contracts have been used increasingly since the global financial crisis. Since Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher,[112] zero hours clauses have been held to be ineffective, so that workers are legally entitled to a reasonable amount of work according to their usual patterns.[113] However, individual workers find common law rights difficult to enforce.
The Working Time Regulations 1998 set limits on working time, and implement the basic requirements of the Working Time Directive.[114] Paid holidays are the most concrete measure, following basic standards in international law.[115] Every worker is entitled to a minimum of 28 days, or four full weeks each year (though this includes public holidays).[116] There is no qualifying period for this, or any other working time right,[117] because the law seeks to ensure both a balance between work and life, and that people have enough rest and leisure to promote better physical and psychological health and safety.[118] Because the purpose is for workers to have the genuine freedom to rest, employers may not give a worker "rolled up holiday pay", for instance an additional 12.5% in a wage bill, in lieu of taking actual holidays. However, if the worker has not used his or her holidays before the job terminates, the employer must give an additional payment for the unused holiday entitlement.[119]
Where a person works at night, he or she may only do 8 hours in any 24-hour period on average, or simply 8 hours at most if the work is classified as "hazardous".[120] Moreover, every worker must receive at least 11 consecutive hours of rest in a 24-hour period, and in every day workers must have at least a 20-minute break in any 6 hour period.[121] The most controversial provisions in the working time laws concerns the right to a maximum working week. The labour movement has always bargained for a shorter working week as it increased economic productivity: the concept of a two-day "weekend" arose in the earlier 20th century, while France more recently implemented the right to a 35-hour workweek in 2000. Under the Directive, this EU maximum is 48 hours. The maximum does not apply to anyone who is self-employed or who can set their own hours of work. In Pfeiffer v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz the ECJ emphasised that the rules aim to protect workers who possess less bargaining power and autonomy over the way they do their jobs.[122] Nevertheless, the UK government negotiated to let workers "opt out" of the 48-hour maximum by individually signing an opt out form.[123] Theoretically and legally, a worker may always change his or her mind after having opted out, and has a right to sue the employer for suffering any detriment if they so choose.[124] However, the obvious criticism has been made that the opt-out makes the right fictitious, because in jobs with a "long hours culture", people are socially compelled to do what everyone else does. If the worker has not "opted out", then the 48-hour week is not a rigid maximum, but is taken as an average over 17 weeks.[125] Analogous to the minimum wage rules, "on call" time (where people must make themselves available, but are not necessarily active) is regarded as working time if the workers are bound to remain awake and close to their workplace.[126] This created a significant problem for junior doctors, where in all European countries the culture has typically been that very long hours are expected. The European Court of Justice's decision in Landeshauptstadt Kiel v Jaegar[127] that junior doctors' on call time was working time led a number of countries to exercise the same "opt out" derogation as the UK, though limited to medical practice. The Health and Safety Executive is the UK body charged with enforcing the working time laws, though it has taken a "light touch" approach to enforcement.
UK employers are reimbursed by the government when employees take paid leave for child care.[128]
[show]
v
t
e
Sources on child care
Pregnant Workers Directive 92/85/EEC
Parental Leave Directives 96/34/EC and 97/75/EC
Employment Rights Act 1996 ss 71-80E
Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/3312)
SSCBA 1992 ss 164-171
Boyle v EOC [1998] ECR I-6401 (C-411/96)
Paternity and Adoption Leave Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/2788)
Additional Paternity Leave Regulations 2010 (SI 2010/1055)
Employment Rights Act 1996 ss 57A-B
Qua v John Ford Morrison Solicitors [2003] IRLR 184
Employment Rights Act 1996 ss 80F-I
Flexible Working Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/3236)
Commotion Ltd v Rutty [2006] IRLR 171
Work and Families Act 2006 (c 18)
see Child care in the United Kingdom
Possibly the most important time off during working life will be to care for newly born or adopted children.[129] However, unlike paid holidays or breaks that are available for "workers", child care rights are restricted to "employees". They are also less favourable for male parents, which affects gender equality.[130] Going beyond the minimum in the Pregnant Workers Directive,[131] the ERA 1996 section 71 to 73 and the Maternity and Parental Leave, etc Regulations 1999 guarantee maternity leave for 52 weeks in total, but in four steps, paid and unpaid. First, women must take two weeks compulsory leave at the time of child birth.[132] Second, and covering the compulsory leave, there is a right to 6 weeks' leave paid at 90 per cent of ordinary earnings. Third, there is a right to 33 weeks leave at the statutory rate, or 90 per cent of ordinary earnings if this is lower, which was £138.18 per week in 2014.[133] The government reimburses employers for the costs according to the employer's size and national insurance contributions.[134] Fourth, the mother may take additional, but unpaid maternity leave for another 13 weeks.[135] A contract of employment can always be, and if collectively bargained usually is, more generous. There is no qualifying period for the right to unpaid leave, but the mother must have worked for 26 weeks for the right to paid leave.[136] The mother must also tell the employer 15 weeks before the date of the expected birth, in writing if the employer requests it. Employees may not suffer any professional detriment or dismissal while they are absent, and should be able to return to the same job after 26 weeks, or another suitable job after 52 weeks.[137] If parents adopt, then the rights to leave follow maternity rules for one primary carer.[138] However, for fathers ordinarily, the position is less generous. The Paternity and Adoption Leave Regulations 2002 entitle a father to 2 weeks leave, at the statutory rate of pay.[139] Both parents may also take "parental leave".[140] This means that, until a child turns 5, or a disabled child turns 18, parents can take up to 13 weeks unpaid leave.[141] Unless there is another collective agreement in place, employees should give 21 days' notice, no more than 4 weeks in a year, at least 1 week at a time, and the employer can postpone the leave for 6 months if business would be unduly disrupted.[142] Otherwise, employees have a right to suffer no detriment, nor be dismissed, and have the right to their previous jobs back.[143] To redress the imbalance between women and men bearing children, the Additional Paternity Leave Regulations 2010[144] made it possible for the woman to transfer up to 26 weeks of her maternity leave entitlements to her partner. However, it remains the case that women care for children more than men, which operates as a comparative obstacle to career advancement, and perpetuates the gender pay gap.
Unlike the UK, Swedish parental leave is equally available to both parents, though men take around 24% of the leave.[145]
In further specific situations, there are a jumble of other rights to leave spread across the ERA 1996 sections 55 to 80I. "Emergency leave" is, under ERA 1996 section 57A, available for employees to deal with birth or a child's issues at school, as well as other emergencies such as dependents' illness or death, so long as the employee informs the employer as soon as reasonably practicable. In Qua v John Ford Morrison Solicitors[146] Cox J emphasised that there is no requirement to deliver daily updates. After EA 2002, employees gained the right to request flexible working patterns for the purpose of caring for a child under the age of 6, or a disabled child under age 18. The right to make the request is contained in ERA 1996 section 80F, and despite the fact that employers may decline the request, employers grant requests in 80 per cent of cases. An employee must make the request in writing, the employer must reply in writing, and can only decline the request on the basis of a correct fact assessment,[147] and within 8 grounds listed in section 80G, which generally concern business and organisational necessity. In Commotion Ltd v Rutty[148] a toy warehouse assistant was refused a reduction to part-time work because, according to the manager, everyone needed to work full-time to maintain "team spirit". The Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that because "team spirit" was not one of the legitimate grounds for refusal, Mrs Rutty should get compensation, which is set at a maximum of 8 weeks' pay.[149] Finally, the ERA 1996 sections 63D-I give employees (and agency workers are expressly included) the right to request the right to get time off for training.[150]
Occupational pensions[edit]
Main articles: Pensions in the United Kingdom and English trust law
[show]
v
t
e
Sources on pensions
Pension Schemes Act 1993
Pensions Act 2008
Pensions Act 2004
Richmond Precision Engineering Ltd v Pearce [1985] IRLR 179
Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange Group (1990)
Allonby v Accrington and Rossendale College (2004) C-256/01
Pensions Act 2004 ss 221-233
Bishopsgate Investment Ltd v Maxwell (No 2) [1993] BCLC 814
Occupational Retirement Directive
Houldsworth v Bridge Trustees Ltd [2011]
The Pensions Regulator v Lehman Brothers [2013] UKSC 52
see Pensions in the UK
There are three "pillars" of the UK pension system, which aim to ensure dignity and a fair income in retirement. The first pillar is the state pension, administered by the government, and funded by National Insurance contributions. The third pillar is private, or "personal pensions", which individuals buy themselves.[151] The second pillar, and deriving from the contract of employment, is occupational pensions. Traditionally, these came from a collective agreement, or from an employer setting one up. The Pensions Act 2008 gives every "jobholder" (defined as a worker, age 16 to 75, with wages between £5,035 and £33,540[152]) the right to be automatically enrolled by the employer in an occupational pension, unless the jobholder chooses to opt out.[153] This is a simple "defined contribution" scheme: whatever the jobholder contributes, they get out. Although collectively invested, benefits are individualised, meaning the risk of living longer and running out of money grows. To reduce administration costs, a non-departmental trust fund called the National Employment Savings Trust was established as a "public option" competing with private asset managers.[154] Employers set aside an agreed percentage of jobholders' wages, and negotiate how much they will contribute. This is particularly important for people who do not created a union and collective bargained for an occupational pension.[155] Collectively bargained pensions are often better, and historically had "defined benefits": on retirement, people receive money based either on their final salary, or a career average of earnings for the rest of their lives. Living longer does not become an individual risk, but is collectivised among all contributors. In principle, the rules for pension trusts differ from ordinary law of trusts as pensions are not gifts and people pay for their benefits through their work.[156] Pensions operating through contracts also engender mutual trust and confidence in the employment relationship.[157] An employer is under a duty to inform their staff about how to make the best of their pension rights.[158] Moreover, workers must be treated equally, on grounds of gender or otherwise, in their pension entitlements.[159] The management of a pension trust must be partly codetermined by the pension beneficiaries, so that a minimum of one third of a trustee board are elected or "member nominated trustees".[160] The Secretary of State has the power by regulation, as yet unused, to increase the minimum up to one half.[161] Trustees are charged with the duty to manage the fund in the best interests of the beneficiaries, in a way that reflects their preferences,[162] by investing the savings in company shares, bonds, real estate or other financial products.
Every jobholder will from 2012 be automatically enrolled in an occupational pension, and can codetermine how their retirement savings are invested and their voice in company shares is used.[163]
Because pension schemes save up significant amounts of money, which many people rely on in retirement, protection against an employer's insolvency, or dishonesty, or risks from the stock market were seen as necessary after the 1992 Robert Maxwell scandal.[164] Defined contribution funds must be administered separately, not subject to an employer's undue influence. The Insolvency Act 1986 also requires that outstanding pension contributions are a preferential over creditors, except those with fixed security.[165] However, defined benefit schemes are also meant to insure everyone has a stable income regardless of whether they live a shorter or longer period after retirement.[166] The Pensions Act 2004 sections 222 to 229 require that pension schemes have a minimum "statutory funding objective", with a statement of "funding principles", whose compliance is periodically evaluated by actuaries, and shortfalls are made up. The Pensions Regulator is the non-departmental body which is meant to oversee these standards, and compliance with trustee duties,[167] which cannot be excluded.[168] However, in The Pensions Regulator v Lehman Brothers[169] the Supreme Court concluded that if the Pensions Regulator issued a "Financial Support Direction" to pay up funding, and it was not paid when a company had gone insolvent, this ranked like any other unsecured debt in insolvency, and did not have priority over banks that hold floating charges. In addition, there exists a Pensions Ombudsman who may hear complaints and take informal action against employers who fall short of their statutory duties.[170] If all else fails, the Pension Protection Fund guarantees a sum is ensured, up to a statutory maximum.[171]
Income tax and insurance[edit]
See also: Taxation in the United Kingdom, National Insurance, and Tax credit
UK tax history and Taxation in medieval England
Income Tax Act 1803 to fund the Napoleonic Wars, repealed and then reintroduced by Robert Peel in the Income Tax Act 1842
National Insurance Fund, whereby people pay for their (1) state pensions (2) unemployment insurance (3) redundancy protection (4) contributions to health care.
Beveridge Report
IR35, disguised employment
Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 and Social Security Contributions (Intermediaries) Regulations 2000, SI 2000/727
Income Tax Act 2007, mostly replacing Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988
Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003
Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005
Tax return (United Kingdom) include the P35 form filled out by employers for the employees' tax. In the PAYE series, a P60 form from employers proving tax was paid at the end of the year, P45 a form when employment ceases recording tax up to the end of employment. P11D is a form for employers to disclose expenses and benefits given to employees earning over £8500 that do not go through the payroll. Each person has an individual Tax code (PAYE). Similar abbreviations for forms are used for self-assessment and tax credits, e.g. S100 and TC600.
Finance Act 2010 section 2 and Schedule 1, introducing the temporary bank payroll tax
Working tax credit and Child tax credit, to be replaced by the Universal credit in 2016
Child benefit, a weekly payment of over £20 a week for the first child, and over £13 a week for each additional child. Introduced by the Family Allowances Act 1945, followed by the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act 1952 and the Family Allowances Act and National Insurance Act 1956
Pension tax simplification in 2004, simplified the taxes applied to pensions. It abandoned the retirement annuity plan that had existed from the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 s 226 contracts and ICTA 1988 s 620
Civil liberties at work[edit]
See also: Civil liberties in the United Kingdom
Human Rights Act 1998 ss 3-6 and ECHR article 8, right to privacy
Copland v United Kingdom [2007] ECHR 253, monitoring the calls and internet usage of an employee was a violation of the employee's right to private life and correspondence under ECHR article 8. A manager, after spying on the employee's telephone calls and internet use, subsequently insinuated and gossiped that the employee was in a personal affair with another employee.
Kopke v Germany [2010] ECHR 1725, that video surveillance of employees, after an employer had found money was going missing from the till, was a proportionate response to the legitimate aim of protecting property rights (and implicitly, general video surveillance without any reasonable suspicion of a wrongful act would be a violation).
Barbulescu v Romania [2016] ECHR 61, Pinto J dissenting, an employer was entitled to monitor use workplace messaging account, which it had explicitly prohibited employees using for personal reasons.
Halford v United Kingdom [1997] IRLR 471
Smith and Grady v United Kingdom [1999] IRLR 734
Kara v United Kingdom (1998) No. 36528/97 ECHR
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000, an employer cannot check personal emails at all without the sender's consent, even from a work email account. It may check business emails to assess whether a crime has been committed or unauthorised activity has occurred, but only in strictly defined circumstances.
Data Protection Act 1998 s 13, compensation for injury or distress if an employer, without telling the person and stating its purpose, collects personal data. cf, Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979)
ECHR article 10, right to freedom of expression
Pay v United Kingdom [2008] ECHR 1007, [2009] IRLR 139
Glasenapp v Germany (1987) 9 EHRR 25
Vogt v Germany (1996) 21 EHRR 205
Ahmed v United Kingdom (1998) EHRR 29
Grigoriades v Greece (1997) 27 EHRR 464
ERA 1996 ss 43A-K, 47B and whistleblower inserted by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998
ECHR article 6, right to a fair trial
R (Wright) v Secretary of State for Health [2009] UKHL 3, [2009] 2 WLR 267
ECHR Prot 1, art 1, right to property
Nerva v United Kingdom [1996] IRLR 461; (2003) 36 EHRR 4, [2002] IRLR 815
The right with the greatest direct impact for labour law is the right to freedom of association under ECHR article 11.
Workplace participation[edit]
See also: UK company law and Labour law
UK labour law's central goal since the Trade Disputes Act 1906 has been for people to vote in their workplace, like in Parliament,[172] to achieve "a fair day's wage for a fair day's work".[173] This happens through staff organising unions, using legal participation rights, and collectively bargaining.
While UK law creates a "charter of rights" for minimum standards at work, the goal of fair standards requires the right to participate in an enterprise's management. In law, this means the right to vote for managers, or on important issues, and the right to collective bargaining. Trade unions are the main way that workers organise their own voice. Unions aim to improve their members' lives at work.[174] They are founded on contract, but members must have the right to elect the executive, not be excluded without good reason, and not be discriminated against by employers. Unions' main functions are organising and representing a workforce through statutory participation channels, collective bargaining, providing mutual assistance, and being a forum for social deliberation and activism. Collective agreements, which unions make with employers, usually aim to set fair scales of pay and working hours, require pensions, training and workplace facilities, and update standards as the enterprise changes. Trade union bargaining power rests, in the last resort, on collective action. To balance employer power to change the employment relation's terms, or dismiss staff,[175] an official trade union has been protected by law in its right to strike.[176] Since the 1875,[177] UK law has said collective action, including the right to strike, is lawful if it is "in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute".[178] Since the 1980s, there have also been unduly technical and onerous requirements for balloting the workforce and warning the employer, suppression of sympathy strikes and picketing. In these respects UK law has fallen below international labour standards.[179] There are legal rights to information about workplace changes, consultation (on redundancies, business restructuring and management generally). Finally, there are a small number of rights for direct participation in workplace and company affairs, particularly pension management. In a small number of enterprises, such as universities, staff have the right to vote for representatives on boards that manage the organisation.
Trade unions[edit]
[show]
v
t
e
Sources on trade unions
European Convention on Human Rights art 11
ILO Freedom of Association Convention (1948) C87
ASLEF v United Kingdom [2007] ECHR 184
Lee v Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain [1952] 2 QB 359
Edwards v Halliwell [1950] 2 All ER 1064
Hodgson v NALGOA [1972] 1 WLR 130
TULRCA 1992 ss 46-61
Ecclestone v National Union of Journalists [1999] IRLR 166
Breen v Amalgamated Engineering Union [1971] 2 QB 175
AB v CD [2001] IRLR 808
TULRCA 1992 ss 71-96
Paul v NALGO [1987] IRLR 413
Roebuck v NUM (Yorkshire Area) No 2 [1978] ICR 676
Esterman v NALGO [1974] ICR 625
Cheall v APEX [1983] 2 AC 180
TULRCA 1992 ss 62-65
see UK labour and trade unions
See also: Trade unions in the UK, List of trade unions in the UK, and Voluntary association
In principle, UK law guarantees trade unions and their members freedom of association. This means people can organise their affairs in the way they choose, a right reflected in the ILO Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 and the European Convention on Human Rights, article 11.[180] Under the ECHR article 11, freedom of association can only be restricted by law as is "necessary in a democratic society". Traditional common law and equity was superficially similar, since unions form through contract, and the association's property is held on trust for its members according to the association's rules. However, before Parliament became democratic, unions were suppressed for allegedly being in "restraint of trade" and their actions (particularly strikes to improve conditions at work) could be regarded as criminal conspiracy.[181] Nineteenth century reformers, who recognised that unions were democratic,[182] gradually succeeded in guaranteeing unions' freedom of association. The Trade Union Act 1871 aimed to keep the courts away from unions' internal affairs, while the Trade Disputes Act 1906 finally confirmed the right of unions to take collective action, free from liability in tort, if it was "in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute". The basic philosophy of "legal abstention" from union organisation lasted until 1971 when the Conservative government attempted comprehensive regulation.[183] This intervention was reversed by Labour in 1974,[184] but after 1979 unions became heavily regulated.
Since 2013 Frances O'Grady has been the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, which is the umbrella grouping for British trade unions.
Today union governance can be configured in any manner, so long as it complies with the compulsory standards set by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Before 1979, all unions had systems of elections and were democratic. In most the members elected union executives directly.[185] However, it was thought that indirect elections (e.g. where members voted for delegates, who elected executives in conference) made a minority of unions more "out of touch" and militant than was natural.[186] Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, section 46, requires that members have direct voting rights for the executive, which cannot stay in office for more than five years. In addition, rules were passed (though there was little evidence of problems before) saying no candidate may be unreasonably excluded from an election, all voters are equal, and postal ballots must be available.[187] In practice, UK union elections are often competitive,[188] although voter turnouts (without electronic voting) tend to be low. Minor procedural irregularities that would not affect outcomes do not undermine an election,[189] but otherwise a Certification Officer can hear complaints about malpractice, make inquiries, and issue enforcement orders, which can in turn be appealed to the High Court.[190] For example, in Ecclestone v National Union of Journalists[191] Jake Ecclestone, who had been the Deputy General Secretary of the National Union of Journalists for 40 years, was dismissed by the executive. He attempted to run for election again, but the executive introduced a rule that candidates had to have the executive's "confidence". Smith J held the union had no express rule stating the executive could do this, nor could any be construed consistently with the democratic nature of the union's constitution. The executive's "new rule" was also contrary to TULRCA 1992 section 47, which prohibits unfair exclusions of candidates. Where statute is not explicit, standard principles of construction apply. There have been dissenting views, notably in Breen v Amalgamated Engineering Union,[192] over the extent to which principles of natural justice may override a union's express rules. However, the better view appears that construction of a union's rules consistently with statutory principles of democratic accountability do require that express rules are disapplied if they undermine the "reasonable expectations" of members.[193] In addition, "best practice" standards will be used to interpret union rules. In AB v CD, where the union's rules were silent on what would happen when an election was tied, the court referred to the Electoral Reform Society's guidance.[194]
[show]
v
t
e
Largest UK unions
1. Unite the Union
2. UNISON
3. GMB
4. Usdaw
5. National Union of Teachers
6. NASUWT
7. Public and Commercial Services Union
8. Communication Workers Union
9. Association of Teachers and Lecturers
10. British Medical Association
11. Prospect
12. University and College Union
13. RMT
14. Educational Institute of Scotland
15. Fire Brigades Union
16. Equity
17. Prison Officers Association
18. National Union of Journalists
19. Transport Salaried Staffs' Association
20. Musicians' Union
see List of UK unions
Beyond union governance through the vote and elections, members have five main statutory rights. First, although statute asserts that a union is "not a body corporate", in every practical sense it is: it can make contracts, commission torts, hold property, sue and be sued.[195] The union's executives and officials carry out actions on its behalf, and their acts are attributed to it by ordinary principles of agency. However, if any union official acts ultra vires, beyond the union's powers, every member has a right to claim a remedy for the breach.[196] For example, in Edwards v Halliwell[197] a decision of the executive committee of the National Union of Vehicle Builders to increase membership fees was restrained, because the constitution required a two-third vote of members first.[198] Second, TULRCA 1992 section 28 requires unions to keep accounts, giving a "true and fair" view of its financial affairs. Records are kept for six years, members have a right to inspect them, they are independently audited and overseen by the Certification Officer.[199] Third, members have a right to not give contributions to the trade union's political fund, if there is one. Since the early success of the UK Labour Party in promoting working people's welfare through Parliament, both courts and Conservative governments attempted to suppress unions' political voice,[200] particularly compared to funding by employers through control of corporations.[201] Under TULRCA 1992 sections 72, 73 and 82, a union must hold a separate fund for any "political object" (such as advertising, lobbying or donations), members must approve the fund by ballot at least every 10 years, and individual members have a right to opt-out of it (unlike shareholders in companies). Unions must also have political objects in the constitution.[202] In 2010, just 29 from 162 unions had political funds, though 57 per cent of members contributed. This generated £22m.[203] Consolidated statistics on corporate political spending, by contrast, are not available.
Reflecting the democratic tradition of British unions, in 2007, 2010 and 2013 Jerry Hicks challenged the general secretary of Unite the Union, and only lost by small margins in the system of voting by postal ballots among members.
Fourth, members must be treated fairly if they are disciplined by a union, in accordance with judicially developed principles of natural justice. For example, in Roebuck v NUM (Yorkshire Area) No 2[204] Templeman J held that it was unfair that Arthur Scargill was on the appeal panel for journalists being disciplined for appearing as witnesses against a libel action by Scargill himself. In another example, Esterman v NALGO[205] held that Miss Esterman could not be disciplined for taking up an election counting job outside of her work, especially since the power of the union to restrain her was not clearly in its own rules. Fifth, members cannot be expelled from the union without a fair reason, set out in the statutory grounds under TULRCA 1992 section 174. This could include an expulsion under the Bridlington Principles, an agreement among unions to maintain solidarity and not attempt to "poach" each other's members.[206] However, the legislation was amended after ASLEF v United Kingdom[207] to make clear that unions may exclude members whose beliefs or actions are opposed to the union's legitimate objectives. In ASLEF, a member named Mr Lee was involved in the British National Party, a neo-fascist organisation committed to white supremacy, and Lee himself was involved in violence and intimidation against Muslim people and women. The European Court of Human Rights held that ASLEF was entitled to expel Mr Lee because, so long as it did not abuse its organisational power or lead to individual hardship, "unions must remain free to decide in accordance with union rules, questions concerning admission to and expulsion from the union."[208] Lastly, union members also have the more dubious "right" to not strike in accordance with the decision of the executive.[209] This precludes a union disciplining members who break solidarity,[210] and has been criticised by the International Labour Organization for undermining a union's effectiveness, in breach of core labour standards.[211]
Collective bargaining[edit]
See also: Collective bargaining
[show]
v
t
e
Collective bargaining sources
ECHR article 11
TULRCA 1992 Sch A1
Fullarton Computer Industries Ltd v CAC [2001] Scot CS 168
R (Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd) v CAC [2002] EWCA Civ 512
R (National Union of Journalists) v CAC [2005] EWCA Civ 1309
TULRCA 1992 s 179
Gallagher v Post Office [1970] 3 All ER 712
TULRCA 1992 ss 137-166 and 275
CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service [1983] UKHL 6
Fitzpatrick v British Railways Board [1992] ICR 221
Wilson and Palmer v United Kingdom [2002] ECHR 552
Young, James and Webster v United Kingdom [1981] ECHR 4
Employment Relations Act 1999 ss 10-15
NUGSAT v Albury Brothers Ltd [1979] ICR 84
TULRCA 1992 ss 168-170
Luce v Bexley LBC [1990] ICR 591
see UK labour
The right of workers to collectively bargain with employers for a "fair day's wage for a fair day's work" is regarded as a fundamental right in common law,[212] by the European Convention on Human Rights article 11,[213] and in international law.[214] Historically the UK had, however, left the procedure for making collective agreements, and their content, largely untouched by law. This began to change from 1971, though by contrast to other countries in the Commonwealth, Europe, or the United States the UK remains comparatively "voluntarist". In principle, it is always possible for an employer and a trade union to come voluntarily to any collective agreement. Employers and unions would usually aim to develop an annually updated wage scale for workers, fair and flexible working time, holidays and breaks, transparent and just procedures for hiring or dismissals, fair and jointly administered pensions, and a commitment to work together for the enterprise's success.[215] In 2010, around 32 per cent of the UK workforce was covered by a collective agreement, leaving around two-thirds of the British workforce with little influence over the terms of their work.
Otto Kahn-Freund (1900–1979), was a Berlin Labour Court judge who was forced out in 1933, heavily influenced the idea of UK labour law as "collective laissez-faire".[216]
Traditionally, if workers organise a union, their last resort to get an employer to the bargaining table was to threaten collective action, including exercising their right to strike.[217] In addition, the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 Schedule A1 contains a statutory procedure for workers to become recognised for collective bargaining.[218] To use this procedure, first, a trade union must be certified as independent and the workplace must have a minimum of 21 workers.[219] Second, there must not already be a recognised trade union.[220] This caused particular problems in R (National Union of Journalists) v Central Arbitration Committee[221] as the Court of Appeal held that a recognised union which lacked any significant support could block the bargaining claim of a union with support. Third, the union must identify an appropriate "bargaining unit" for a collective agreement, which a government body named the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC)[222] can verify and approve.[223] On the union's proposal, the CAC must take into account whether the proposed bargaining unit is "compatible with effective management", as well as the employer's views and the characteristics of the workers.[224] The CAC has broad discretion, and may only be challenged by an employer under the general principles of natural justice in administrative law.[225] In R (Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd) v CAC[226] the Court of Appeal found that the CAC's determination that the appropriate bargaining unit was all of Kwik Fit's workers within the M25 London ring road. The union's recommendation is the starting point and the CAC is entitled to prefer this over an employer's alternative, especially since the employer will often attempt to define a larger "unit" so as to limit the likelihood of union members holding greater majority support. Fourth, once the bargaining unit is defined, the CAC may be satisfied that there is majority support for the union to represent the workforce and will make a recognition declaration.[227] Alternatively, fifth, it may determine that the position is less clear and that a secret ballot is in the interests of good industrial relations.[228] Sixth, if a ballot takes place both the union and the employer should have access to employees, and be able to distribute their arguments, and threats, bribes or undue influence are forbidden.[229] Seventh, when a vote takes place the union must have at least 10 per cent membership, and win 50 per cent of the vote, or least 40 per cent of those entitled to vote.[230] If the union wins a majority, the eighth and final step is that if the parties do not reach an agreement the CAC will regulate the collective agreement for the parties and the result will be legally binding.[231] This contrasts to the basic position, under TULRCA 1992 section 179, which presumes that collective agreements are not intended to create legal relations.[232] The long, problematic procedure, was partly based on the model of the US National Labor Relations Act 1935, but because of its cumbersome nature it strongly encourages the parties to seek voluntary agreement in the spirit of cooperation and good faith.
The European Court of Human Rights has continually held, like the UK courts,[233] that collective bargaining is a basic right guaranteed by ECHR article 11.[234]
Though most collective agreements will come about voluntarily, the law has sought to ensure that workers have true freedom of association by prohibiting employers from deterring union membership, and by creating positive rights for members. First, the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 sections 137-143 make it unlawful for employers, including agencies, to refuse anyone employment on grounds of union membership. The courts will interpret the legislation purposively to protect union activities,[235] with the same strictness as other anti-discrimination laws. Second, TULRCA 1992 sections 146-166 state that workers may not be subject to any detriment or dismissal. For example, in Fitzpatrick v British Railways Board[236] the Board dismissed of a lady who had been a member of a Trotskyist group (which promoted international socialism). The Board justified this on the ground that she had not told the employer about having previously worked for the Ford Motor Company, and so for ‘untruthfulness and lack of trust’. Woolf LJ held that this was not the true reason - Trotskyism was the issue. The dismissal was unlawful under section 152. Given the technicality of the legislation, the most important case is Wilson and Palmer v United Kingdom,[237] where Mr Wilson's pay was not increased by the Daily Mail because he wished to remain on the union collective agreement, and Mr Palmer's pay was not put up by 10 per cent because he would not consent to leaving the union, the NURMTW. The European Court of Human Rights held that any ambiguity about protection in UK law contravened ECHR article 11 because,
“ the essence of a voluntary system of collective bargaining is that it must be possible for a trade union which is not recognised by an employer to take steps including, if necessary, organising industrial action, with a view to persuading the employer to enter into collective bargaining with it on those issues which the union believes are important for its members' interests.... employees should be free to instruct or permit the union to make representations to their employer or to take action in support of their interests on their behalf. If workers are prevented from so doing, their freedom to belong to a trade union, for the protection of their interests, becomes illusory. ”
In principle, like any victimisation case in discrimination law, ‘a detriment exists if a reasonable worker would or might take the view that the [treatment] was in all the circumstances to his detriment’.[238] If the UK statutes are not updated, the Human Rights Act 1998 section 3 requires interpretation of the common law, or statute, to reflect ECHR principles. More specific legislation, with the Data Protection Act 1998 sections 17-19 and the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010, penalises a practice of recording or blacklisting union members, and potentially leads to criminal sanctions for employers and agencies who do so.[239]
Income inequality surged as union membership declined from 1980, when people stopped being automatically enrolled in their union.[240] A "closed shop" is unlawful,[241] but with a right to opt out, unions can collectively agree that staff automatically become members.[242]
Third, union members have a right to be represented by union officials in any disciplinary or grievance meeting under Employment Relations Act 1999 sections 10-15. This can be particularly important when a worker is in trouble with management. Fourth, an employer must permit officials of independent trade unions, which it recognises for collective bargaining, to a reasonable amount of time off to fulfill their role.[243] Also, union members have a right to a reasonable amount of time off during work hours also to participate in meetings about agreements with the employer, or voting for elections.[244] An ACAS Code of Practice sets out the general guidelines.[245] A final "right" of a worker is that under TULRCA 1992 he or she may not be compelled to become a union member in what used to be called closed shop arrangements. Collective agreements had required that employers did not hire anyone who was not a union member. However, the European Court of Human Rights decided in 1981 that "freedom of association" under article 11 also entailed "freedom from association".[246] This shift in the law coincided with the start of a Europe-wide trend toward falling union membership, as the closed shop had been the main mechanism to keep up union support, and thus collective bargaining for fairer workplaces. The ECHR does not, however, prevent unions pursuing fair share agreements, where non-union members contribute to union fees for the services they get for collective bargaining.[247] Nor does it prevent collective agreements that would automatically enroll staff in the trade union, as happens under the Pensions Act 2008,[248] with the right for the worker to opt-out if they chose.
Collective action[edit]
See also: Collective action in the United Kingdom, Strike action, and Picketing (protest)
[show]
v
t
e
Collective action sources
TULRCA 1992 s 219
Lumley v Gye (1853) 2 E&B 216
Taff Vale Railway Co v ASRS [1901] AC 426
Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co Ltd v Veitch [1942] AC 435
JT Stratford & Son v Lindley [1965] AC 269
Torquay Hotel Co Ltd v Cousins [1969] 2 Ch 106
Merkur Island Shipping Corporation v Laughton [1983] 2 AC 570
TULRCA 1992 s 244
BBC v Hearn [1977] ICR 686
UCL Hospitals NHS Trust v Unison [1999] ICR 204
Universe Tankships Inc of Monrovia v ITWF [1983] 1 AC 366
TULRCA 1992 ss 226-234
P v NASUWT [2003] 2 AC 663
British Airways Plc v Unite the Union (No 2) [2010] EWCA Civ 669
Metrobus Ltd v Unite the Union [2009] EWCA Civ 829
TULRCA 1992 ss 20-22, 220-221 and 241
The Rosella (2008) C-438/05
Laval Un Partneri Ltd v Svenska BAF (2008) C-319/05
Demir and Baykara v Turkey [2008] ECHR 1345
RMT v UK [2014] ECHR 366
see UK labour and unions
The right of workers to collectively withdraw their labour has always been used to make employers stick to a collective agreement. At critical moments of history, it also combatted political repression (e.g. the Peasants' Revolt of 1381, and the Indian Independence Movement up to 1947), prevented military coups against democratic governments (e.g. the general strike in Germany against the Kapp Putsch in 1920), and overthrew dictatorships (e.g. in the 2008 Egyptian general strike). Anti-democratic regimes cannot tolerate social organisation they do not control, which is why the right to strike is fundamental to every democratic society, and a recognised human right in international law.[249] Historically, the UK recognised the right to strike at least since 1906.[250] UK tradition has inspired the International Labour Organization Convention 87 (1948) articles 3 and 10,[251] the case law of the European Court of Human Rights under article 11,[252] and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights article 28. However, the scope of the right to take collective action has been controversial. Reflecting a series of restrictions from 1979 to 1997, the law was partially codified in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 sections 219 to 246, which now falls below international standards.
The right to strike, used throughout history like in the Peasants' Revolt of 1381, is a fundamental right in every democracy. TULRCA 1992 sets limits which have been found by the International Labour Organization to violate international standards.
There is no consensus about the status of the right to strike at common law. On the one hand, the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal has repeatedly affirmed that "to cease work except for higher wages, and a strike in consequence, was lawful at common law",[253] that "right of workmen to strike is an essential element in the principle of collective bargaining",[254] "that workmen have a right to strike",[255] and that this is "a fundamental human right".[256] This view would accord with international law, and see the right to stop work in a good faith trade dispute as an implied term in every employment contract. On the other hand, differently composed courts have asserted that the common law position sits at odds with international law: that a strike is a breach of contract,[257] and this creates tortious liability for unions organising collective action,[258] unless it falls within an immunity from statute.[259] On this view, even though an employer is not liable for economic loss to workers who are collectively dismissed, a union could be liable to the employer for taking collective action. Economic torts have been said to include conspiracy to injure,[260] inducement of breach of contract,[261] and tortious interference with a contract.[262] However, TULRCA 1992 section 219 contains the classic formula,[263] that collective action by a trade union becomes immune from any liability in tort if done "in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute". This said, various further hurdles must be jumped for a union to be certain of immunity from employers suing for damages, or an injunction to stop a strike.
Tony Blair, New Labour Prime Minister from 1997 to 2007, said in 1997 that "changes that we do propose would leave British law the most restrictive on trade unions in the Western world."[264] This is still seen as accurate.[265]
First, the meaning of a "trade dispute" under TULRCA 1992 section 244 is confined to mean a dispute "between workers and their employer" and must mainly relate to employment terms. In BBC v Hearn[266] Lord Denning MR granted an injunction against a strike by BBC staff to stop broadcast of the 1977 FA Cup Final to apartheid South Africa. He reasoned that this was a political dispute, not a "trade dispute", unless the union was requesting "putting a clause in the contract" to not do such work. Strikes against government legislation (rather than an employer),[267] or privatisation,[268] or outsourcing before it happens,[269] have been held unlawful. However, at the least, any dispute over the terms or conditions on which workers do their jobs will allow protection.[270] Second, TULRCA 1992 section 224 prevents collective action against someone who is "not the employer party to the dispute".[271] So called "secondary action" was lawful from the Trade Union Act 1871 until 1927,[272] and again from 1946 till 1980.[273] This makes the definition of "employer" relevant, particularly where a trade dispute involves a company group.[274] A worker's written statement of the contract may purport to say that the only "employer" is a subsidiary, although the parent company carries out the employer's function of ultimately setting the contractual terms and conditions.[275] There are a limited number of outright prohibitions on strike action, but in accordance with ILO Convention 87 this is only for workplaces that involve the truly essential functions of the state (for armed forces, police,[276] and prison officers[277]), and only when impartial arbitration is used as an alternative.[278]
Third, under TULRCA 1992 section 226 a union wishing to take collective action for a trade dispute must conduct a ballot.[279] In summary, the union must give 7 days notice to the employer about holding a ballot, state the categories of employees being balloted, give a total number, all "as accurate as is reasonably practicable in the light of the information".[280] A scrutineer must be able to oversee the conduct, the vote must be given to all workers who could strike, the vote must be secret and by post, allowing for ‘small accidental failures’ which are ‘unlikely to affect the result of the ballot’.[281] The union must inform the employer of the result "as soon as reasonably practicable", call action within four weeks, and tell the employer of the people taking part.[282] The rules are poorly drafted, and this has generated litigation where some courts allowed injunctions on ostensible technical glitches.[283] However, the Court of Appeal since emphasised in British Airways Plc v Unite the Union (No 2)[284] and RMT v Serco Ltd[285] that the rules are to be interpreted consistently with the purpose of reconciling the equally legitimate, but conflicting interests of employers and unions.[286]
Picketing, dismissal protection, injunctions and damages
Trade Union Act 2016
Information and consultation[edit]
See also: Work council, Negotiation, and Whitley Council
[show]
v
t
e
Information and consultation sources
CFREU 2000 art 27
TULRCA 1992 ss 181-182 and Companies Act 2006 ss 172 and 417-419
AMS v Union locale des syndicats CGT (2014) C‑176/12
Collective Redundancies Directive 98/59/EC art 2
Transfers of Undertakings Directive 2001/23/EC art 7
TULRCA 1992 ss 188-198 and TUPER 2006 regs 13-16
University of Stirling v UCU [2015] UKSC 26
Junk v Kühnel (2005) C-188/03
AEK ry v Fujitsu Siemens Computers Oy (2009) C-44/08
Lyttle v Bluebird UK Bidco 2 Ltd (2015) C-182/13
Royal Mail Group Ltd v CWU [2009] EWCA Civ 1045
United States of America v Nolan [2015] UKSC 63
Information and Consultation Directive 2002/14/EC art 4(2)
Information and Consultation Regulations 2004 (SI 3426/2004)
Stewart v Moray Council [2006] ICR 1253
European Works Council Directive 2009/38/EC art 6(3)
TICER 1999
see UK labour law
While rights to take collective action, including strikes, are fundamental to democratic and civilised society, the UK has introduced a growing menu of collective rights to have a "voice at work" without a need for protest.[287] "Information and consultation" are usually seen as precursors to actual participation rights, through binding votes at work. The economic benefit is that directors or decision-makers who inform and consult staff on important workplace changes (e.g. redundancies) think harder, and see alternatives with fewer costs for the enterprise, taxpayers, and staff.[288] Information and consultation rights have historically derived from collective bargaining models. The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 sections 181-182 require employers on a union's written request to disclose information, without which collective bargaining could be materially impeded, according to "good industrial relations practice".[289] The Companies Act 2006 section 417-419 also requires disclosure of information in a director's report each financial year on how companies "have regard" to "the interests of the company’s employees" and "business relationships with suppliers" down the supply chain.[290] General consultation rights existed in the UK with collective bargaining since the Whitley Councils from 1918.[291] A general consultation right is now codified in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, article 27.[292] The Court of Justice held this was not directly binding,[293] but specific rules apply in four main contexts: in general work councils, transnational work councils, for collective redundancies, transfers of undertakings, and health and safety.[294]
Every UK company with over 50 people has a right to elect a work council which management must inform and consult before major workplace changes.[295] Staff who work for companies that operate in two or more EU countries have a right to start a transnational work council.[296]
First, the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004,[297] require undertakings with 50 or more employees to inform and consult on probable developments in the enterprise, changes to job structures, and contract changes - especially redundancies.[298] Employees must voluntarily initiate an "information and consultation procedure". If they do, but employers cannot find a negotiated agreement, a "standard procedure" model requires between 2 and 25 elected employee representatives having the right to be consulted on an ongoing basis: that is, an elected work council.[299] A negotiated agreement can cover more issues than the model (for instance, to integrate health and safety issues in one council) if the parties choose.[300] Crucially, consultation is not merely an exercise in management telling staff about their decisions, but requires meaningful dialogue "with a view to reaching an agreement".[301] This is "an obligation to negotiate",[302] similar to a duty to bargain in good faith.[303] To start a procedure, at least 15 employees or 10 per cent of staff (whichever is higher) can request it. Occasionally, there could be a "pre-existing" council, or procedure in writing, covering all employees.[304] If so, if it is not as good as the new method requested, and if the employer wants to keep it that way, a ballot must be held where over 50 per cent of staff favour a new procedure.[305] For example, in Stewart v Moray Council,[306] after 500 teachers requested a new procedure (over 10 per cent of staff, but under 40 per cent), the employer argued that a ballot had to be held, because the existing collective agreement with the union had a protocol on information and consultation. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, rejecting the employer's claim, held the pre-existing procedure was not good enough to force a ballot, because it did not explain how the views of staff would be sought. Employer currently face penalties up to £75,000 for failure to comply with the rules,[307] though it is far from clear this is sufficient to ensure an "effective remedy" under EU law.[308]
Second, the Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 1999 enable unified work councils in multinational enterprises, operating in the EU. This is most likely for US multinational enterprises.[309] In "community scale undertakings" or corporate "groups" with over 1000 employees, and 150 employees in two or more member states, employees have a right to a transnational work council to consult on any "probable trend of employment, investments, and substantial changes... introduction of new working methods or production processes... and collective redundancies."[310] A "group" of undertakings exists when one undertaking has a "dominant influence" over another, for instance through company share ownership or rights to appoint or remove directors.[311] Other features of transnational work councils are similar to the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004. Management can initiate a work council, or 100 employees in at least two undertakings and member states can make a request.[312] Then, a "special negotiating body" (elected worker representative and management) will try to seek an agreement on the terms. If agreement cannot be reached, a template set of "subsidiary requirements" will form the work council's constitution.[313] The rules have been criticised for not going further, or being integrated with other consultation laws,[314] although every member state in the EU is able to go beyond the minimum standards laid down.
To avoid unjustified unemployment, employers must "negotiate" with elected employee representatives,[315] with a view to agreement 30 days in advance, before making more than 20 employees redundant in a workplace establishment.[316]
Third, the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 section 188 requires employers, who are "contemplating" redundancies of 20 employees, in an "establishment" over 90 days, to consult for 30 days with the workforce.[317] "Redundancy" is an economic dismissal "not related to the individual concerned" (e.g. for poor work or misconduct).[318] In University of Stirling v UCU the Supreme Court held that expiry of fixed term contracts, for 140 University teaching staff, did not count as a reason "related to the individual", and so staff should have been consulted.[319] An "establishment" includes "a distinct entity that is ordinarily permanent, entrusted with performing specified tasks, namely primarily the sale of goods, and which has, to that end, several workers, technical means and an organisational structure in that the store is an individual cost centre managed by a manager." In Lyttle v Bluebird UK Bidco 2 Ltd,[320] the Court of Justice held this meant that Woolworths shops in Northern Ireland, each with under 20 employees, could claim to be separate establishments. More doubtfully, it was held by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in E Green & Sons (Castings) Ltd v ASTMS that three companies, all operating from the same premises, were different establishments even though they were part of the same group.[321] There is considerable disagreement over when an employing entity must begin consulting: the Directive says when decision-makers are "contemplating", while the Regulations say "proposes".[322] In AEK ry v Fujitsu Siemens Computers Oy[323] the Court of Justice held consulting must begin "once a strategic or commercial decision compelling him to contemplate or to plan for collective redundancies has been taken." In groups of companies, where a parent controls the subsidiary, the duty to perform the consulting process falls on the subsidiary, but the duty begins as soon as the parent has contemplated that a particular subsidiary "has been identified" for redundancies for consulting "to have any meaning".[324] Consultation should take place with the recognised trade union first, but if there is none, then elected employee representatives, if necessary giving enough time to organise an election.[325] Section 188(7) says that an employer has a "defence" for not consulting if there are "exceptional circumstances", but this "exception" is not in the Directive, and courts have avoided applying it.[326] Dismissals cannot take effect until meaningful negotiation has taken place.[327] If employers fail to negotiate, they must pay a "protective award" of up to 90 days' pay to each employee.[328] Essentially similar rules apply for consultation with staff before any transfer of an undertaking.[329]
Direct participation[edit]
[show]
v
t
e
Workplace participation sources
Companies Act 2006 ss 112 and 168
Bullock Report (1977) Cmnd 6707
Draft Fifth Company Law Directive
European Company Regulation 2157/2001
Employee Involvement Directive 2001/86/EC
Cross Border Merger Directive 2005/56/EC
Pensions Act 2004 ss 241-243
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 s 2
see Workplace participation in the UK
See also: Codetermination, UK company law, and Works council
Direct participation rights in UK corporations and other forms of enterprise have a long history in specific sectors.[330] They remain today in institutions such as universities,[331] and many workplaces organised as partnerships. Since the turn of the 20th century Acts such as the Port of London Act 1908, Iron and Steel Act 1967, or the Post Office Act 1977 required all workers in those specific companies had votes to elect directors on the board, meaning the UK had some of the first "codetermination" laws in the world.[332] However, as many of those Acts were updated, the Companies Act 2006 today still has no general requirement for workers to vote in the general meeting to elect directors, meaning corporate governance remains monopolised by shareholding institutions or asset managers. By contrast in 16 out of 28 EU member states employees have participation rights in private companies, including the election of members of the boards of directors, and binding votes on decisions about individual employment rights, like dismissals, working time and social facilities or accommodation.[333] At board level, UK company law in principle allows any measure of employee participation, alongside shareholders, but voluntary measures have been rare outside employee share schemes that usually carry very little voice and increase employees' financial risk. The Companies Act 2006 section 168 defines only "members" as those with participation rights. Under section 112 a "member" is anybody who initially subscribes their name to the company memorandum, or is later entered on the members' register, and is not required to have contributed money as opposed to, for instance, work. Moreover, under the European Company Statute, businesses that reincorporate as a Societas Europaea may opt to follow the Directive for employee involvement.[334] An SE may have a two-tiered board, as in German companies, where shareholders and employees elect a supervisory board that in turn appoints a management board responsible for day-to-day running of the company. Or an SE can have a one tiered board, as every UK company, and employees and shareholders may elect board members in the desired proportion.[335] An "SE" can have no fewer employee participation rights than what existed before, but for a UK company, there is likely to have been no participation in any case.
Universities in the UK are generally required to give staff members a right to vote for the board of managers at the head of corporate governance, such as in the Oxford University Act 1854,[336] or the Cambridge University Act 1856.[337]
In the 1977 Report of the committee of inquiry on industrial democracy[338] the Government proposed, in line with the new German Codetermination Act 1976, and mirroring an EU Draft Fifth Company Law Directive, that the board of directors should have an equal number of representatives elected by employees as there were for shareholders. But reform stalled, and was abandoned after the 1979 election.[339] Despite successful businesses like the John Lewis Partnership and Waitrose that are wholly managed and owned by the workforce, voluntary granting of participation is rare. Many businesses run employee share schemes, particularly for highly paid employees; however, such shares seldom compose more than a small percentage of capital in the company, and these investments entail heavy risks for workers, given the lack of diversification.[340]
Another form of direct participation rights is for employees to exercise voting rights over specific workplace issues. The primary example is the Pensions Act 2004 sections 241-243 state employees must be able to elect a minimum of one third of the management of their occupational schemes, as "member nominated trustees". This gives employees the ability, in principle to have a voice on how their pension money is invested in company shares, and also how the voting power attached to company shares is used. There have, at the initiative of the European Union been a growing number of "work councils" and "information and consultation committees", but unless an employer voluntarily concedes to staff having a binding say, there is no legal right to participate in specific questions of workplace policy. Participation at work is limited to information, consultation, collective bargaining and industrial action.
Equality[edit]
Main article: UK employment equality law
The Equality Act 2010 protects against discrimination on grounds of race, gender, belief, disability, age, and sexual orientation.
The Equality Act 2010 embodies the principle that people should treat one another according to the content of their character, and not another irrelevant status, to foster social inclusion. This principle, which slowly became fundamental to common law,[341] and EU law,[342] goes beyond employment, to access private and public services. At work, the law largely builds on the minimum standards set in three basic Directives for the whole EU.[343] Beyond the absolute prohibitions on discriminating against trade union members,[344] the EA 2010 protects the characteristics of gender (including pregnancy), race, sexual orientation (including marital status), belief, disability and age.[345] Atypical workers, who have part-time, fixed-term, or agency contracts, are also protected under specific regulations.[346] But although equality legislation explicitly prohibits discrimination on just ten grounds,[347] the common law may also extend protection if employers treat workers unfairly for other reasons that are irrelevant or arbitrary.[348] "Direct" discrimination is when a worker is treated less favourably because of a protected characteristic (e.g. gender or race) compared to another person (with a different gender or race), unless employers can show that a person's characteristic is a "genuine occupational requirement".[349] "Indirect" discrimination is when employers apply a neutral rule to all workers, but this has "disparate impact" on people with a particular protected characteristic, and the rule cannot be "objectively justified". Workers have a right to not suffer harassment at work. Claimants may not be victimised for bringing a discrimination claim. Equal pay between men and women has historically been treated separately in law, with subtle differences (sometimes more or less favourable). The law on disability is more favourable, by placing positive duties on employers to make reasonable adjustments to include disabled people in society. While UK and EU law presently only allow promotion of underrepresented groups if a candidate is equally qualified, it is still debated whether more "positive action" measures should be implemented, particularly to tackle the gender pay gap, and over-representation of white men in senior positions. If discrimination is proven, it is a statutory tort, and it entitles a worker to quit and/or claim damages.
Discrimination[edit]
[show]
v
t
e
Direct discrimination cases
Equality Act 2010 s 13
Horsey v Dyfed County Council [1982] ICR 755
R (EOC) v Birmingham City Council [1989] AC 1155
James v Eastleigh BC [1990] UKHL 6
Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd (No 2) [1995] UKHL 13
Smith v Safeway plc [1996] ICR 868
Grant v South-West Trains Ltd [1998] ICR 449 (C-249/96)
Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police v Khan [2001] UKHL 48
Shamoon v Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] UKHL 11
Roma Rights Centre v Prague Immigration [2004] UKHL 55
Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2012] UKSC 15
Coleman v Attridge Law (2008) C-303/06
English v Sanderson Blinds Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 1421
Grainger plc v Nicholson [2010] IRLR 4 (EAT)
see UK labour and equality law
See also: Workplace bullying and Harassment in the United Kingdom
Under the Equality Act 2006, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, with offices near City Hall, London, promotes equality by intervening in discrimination cases, providing guidance and making investigations into workplace practices.
UK and EU law divide discrimination into direct and indirect forms. Direct discrimination means treating a person, because of a "protected characteristic", less favourably than a comparable person who has a different type of gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.[350] This is an objective test, so the employer's motives are irrelevant. Even if employers have "positive" motives, for instance to help underprivileged groups, discrimination is still unlawful in principle.[351] The claimant's trait merely has to be the reason for the unfavourable treatment.[352] An appropriate comparator is one who is the same in all respects except for the relevant trait, which is claimed as the ground for discrimination. For instance in Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary[353] a chief inspector claimed that she was dismissed because the police force was sexist, and pointed to male chief inspectors who had not been treated unfavourably. The House of Lords overturned a Tribunal finding of sex discrimination because colleagues had complained about how Ms Shamoon had performed appraisals, and her chosen comparators had not received complaints.[354] Generally there is, however, no need to point to an actual comparator, so a claimant can allege they were treated less favourably than a hypothetical person would have been, who is the same except for the protected characteristic. The burden of proof is explicitly regulated so that claimants merely need to show a set of facts from which a reasonable tribunal could conclude there was discrimination, and need not show an intention to discriminate.[355] Because the law aims to eliminate the mindset and culture of discrimination, it is irrelevant whether the person who was targeted was themselves a person with a protected characteristic, so that people who associate with or are perceived to possess a protected characteristic are protected too. In Coleman v Attridge Law a lady with a disabled child was abused by her employer for taking time off to care for the child. Even though Ms Coleman was not disabled, she could claim disability discrimination.[356] And in English v Sanderson Blinds Ltd, a man who was from Brighton and went to boarding school was teased for being gay. Even though he was married with children, he successfully claimed discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.[357] An instruction by an employer to discriminate against customers or anyone else also violates the law.[358]
[show]
v
t
e
Indirect discrimination cases
Equality Act 2010 ss 14 and 19
Griggs v Duke Power Co, 401 US 424 (1971)
Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co KG (2010) C-555/07
Mandla v Dowell-Lee [1982] UKHL 7
Rutherford v SS for Trade and Industry [2006] UKHL 19
Redfearn v Serco Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 659
Eweida v British Airways plc [2010] EWCA Civ 80
Ladele v London Borough of Islington [2009] EWCA Civ 1357
Hampson v Dept of Education and Science [1989] ICR 179
London Underground Ltd v Edwards (No 2) [1997] IRLR 157
Jones v University of Manchester [1993] ICR 474
Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v Weber von Hartz (1986) C-170/84
Rinner-Kühn v FWW Gebäudereinigung KG (1989) C-171/88
Kutz-Bauer v Hansestadt Hamburg (2003) C-187/00
Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College (2004) C-256/01
Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes [2012] UKSC 16
EA 2010 s 14
Ministry of Defence v DeBique [2010] IRLR 471
see UK labour and equality law
"Indirect" discrimination means an employer, without an objective justification, applies a neutral rule to all employees, but it puts one group at a particular disadvantage.[359] However, the particular disadvantage is irrelevant if it involves a discriminatory state of mine. In Ladele v Islington LBC a woman who refused to register gay civil partners, because she said her Christianity made her conclude homosexuality was wrong, was dismissed for not carrying out her duties. Lord Neuberger MR held that she was not unlawfully discriminated against because the Council was objectively justified in following its equality policy: that everyone working in marriage or partnership registries had to register everybody equally.[360] The European Court of Human Rights upheld this decision. By contrast, in Eweida v British Airways plc a lady who wished to wear a cross claimed that BA's instruction to remove it was indirectly discriminatory against Christians. Although the English Court of Appeal held crucifix jewellery is not an essential part of the Christian religion,[361] the ECHR found that, under the reasonableness limb of the proportionality test, it was an illegitimate interference with Ms Eweida's religious beliefs under ECHR article 9. British Airways changed its uniform policy shortly afterwards in any case, and this indicated that they had acted unlawfully. The question of particular disadvantage also typically relies on evidence of statistical impact between groups. For instance in Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v Weber von Hartz[362] an employer set up pensions only for full-time workers, and not for part-time workers. But 72 per cent of part-time workers were women. So Frau Weber von Hartz was able to show that this rule put her, and women generally, at a particular disadvantage, and it was up to the employer to show there was an objective justification. Statistics might be presented in a misleading way (e.g. a measure could affect twice as many women as men, but that is only because there is 2 women and 1 man affected in a workforce of 100). Accordingly, the correct approach is to show how many people in the affected workforce group are put at an advantage, and then if there is a statistically significant number of people with a protected characteristic who are not advantaged, there must be an objective justification for the practice. In R (Seymour-Smith) v Secretary of State for Employment[363] the UK government's former rules on unfair dismissal were alleged to be discriminatory. Between 1985 and 1999, the government had made the law so that people had to work for 2 years before they qualified for unfair dismissal (as opposed to 1 year presently), and this meant that there was a 4 to 8 per cent disparity between the number of men and women who qualified on dismissal for a tribunal claim. Following ECJ guidance, the House of Lords held by a majority that this was a large enough disparity in coverage, which required justification by the government.
People celebrate "Equal Pay Day" in Berlin. The Equal Treatment Directive,[364] which the Equality Act 2010 sections 64 to 71 follow, covers everyone in the EU, but the law so far has let the gender pay gap persist.
A significant exception to the basic framework for indirect discrimination is found for the issue of equal pay between men and women.[365] Because the Equal Pay Act 1970 preceded other legislation, and so did the TFEU article 157,[366] there has always been a separate body of rules. It is not entirely clear why this should continue, particularly because in several respects it is harder to bring equal pay claims on grounds of gender than for other protected characteristics, meaning that the task of closing the gender pay gap is frustrated compared to race, sexual orientation or other grounds. First, a claim must relate to "pay", concept which is generally construed widely to encompass any kind of remuneration for work, as well as sick pay or for maternity leave.[367] Second, under the EA 2010 section 79, a comparator must be real, and employed by the same employer, or an associated employer, and at the same establishment, or a different establishment if common terms apply.[368] It is usually harder to find a real comparator than imagine a hypothetical one. Third, under EA 2010 section 65, the claimant must be doing "broadly similar" work to the comparator, or work "rated as equivalent", or work which is of "equal value". These criteria, which at their broadest focus on the "value" of labour, make explicit what a court must take into account, but also potentially constrain the court in a way that the open ended test for indirect discrimination does not. Fourth, under section 128 there is a time limit of six months to bring a claim, but unlike the three-month time limit for other discrimination claims it cannot be extended at the court's discretion. However, equal pay claims do import an "equality clause" into the claimant's contract of employment. This allows a claim to be pursued in the High Court as well as a Tribunal. It is unclear what principle justifies the segregation of unequal pay claims based on sex, compared to all other protected characteristics.[369]
[show]
v
t
e
Harassment and victimisation sources
Equality Act 2010 s 26
Strathclyde Regional Council v Porcelli [1986] ICR 564
Pearce v Governing Body of Mayfield School [2003]
Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Trust [2006]
EOC v SS for Trade and Industry [2007]
Ladele v London Borough of Islington [2009]
Nagarajan v London Regional Transport [1997]
West Yorkshire Police v Khan [2001]
Waters v Metropolitan Police [1997] ICR 1073
Shamoon v Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003]
St Helen’s BC v Derbyshire [2007]
see UK labour and equality law
Originally a sub-category of direct discrimination, harassment is now an independent tort which requires no comparator. The Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and now the Equality Act 2010 sections 26 and 40, define harassment as where a person's dignity is violated, or the person is subject to an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. An employer will be liable for its own conduct, but also conduct of employees, or customers if this happens on 2 or more occasions and the employer could be reasonably expected to have intervened.[370] In a straightforward case, in Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Trust[371] a gay man was ostracised and bossed about by his supervisor from the very start of his work as a clinical audit co-ordinator. The House of Lords held the laws create a statutory tort, for which (unless a statute says otherwise) an employer is automatically vicariously liable. Under the Equality Act 2010 section 27, an employer must also ensure that once a complaint is brought by a worker, even if it ultimately proves to be unfounded, that worker should not be victimised. This means the worker should not be subject to anything that a reasonable person would perceive as detrimental. In St Helen’s MBC v Derbyshire[372] the House of Lords held a council victimised female staff who were pursuing an equal pay claim when it sent letters warning (without much factual basis) that if the claim went ahead, the council would be forced to cut school dinners and make redundancies. Because it attempted to make the workers feel guilty, a reasonable person would have regarded this as a detriment. By contrast, in Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan,[373] a sergeant with a pending race discrimination claim was denied a reference by the employer that he was suing. The House of Lords held this could not be considered victimisation because the Constabulary was only seeking to protect its legitimate interests by not giving a reference, so as to not prejudice its own future case in the discrimination hearings.
Justification[edit]
[show]
v
t
e
Sources on justifying discrimination
Equality Act 2010 Sch 9
Etam plc v Rowan [1989] IRLR 150
Johnston v Royal Ulster Constabulary (1986) C-222/84
R (Amicus) v SS for Trade and Industry [2004] EWHC 860
Sirdar v The Army Board (1999) C-273/97
Kreil v Germany (2000) C-285/98
Lambeth LBC v Commission for Racial Equality [1990] ICR 768
Tottenham Green Nursery v Marshall (No 2) [1991] ICR 320
Equality Act 2010 s 19(2)(d)
Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v Weber von Hartz (1984) C-170/84
Kontofunktionaerernes Forbund v Danfoss (1989) C-109/88
Rinner-Kühn v FWW Gebäudereinigung KG (1989) C-171/88
Nimz v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg (1991) C-184/89
Kutz-Bauer v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg (2003) C-187/00
Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College (2004) C-256/01
see UK labour law
Harassment and victimisation cannot be justified, but in principle there are exceptions or justifications for all forms of direct and indirect discrimination. Apart from direct age discrimination which can also be objectively justified, the general rule for direct discrimination, elaborated in EA 2010 Schedule 9,[374] is that an employer may only be exempt if it can show that having a worker fit a particular description is a "genuine occupational requirement". This means the (otherwise) discriminatory practice must pursue a legitimate aim in terms of the nature of the occupation itself (not the employer's business needs generally) and the practice must be proportionate. The test is stringent. In Etam plc v Rowan[375] a man was turned down for a job at a woman's clothing store, with the excuse that a man should not operate women's change rooms. But this did not count as a genuine occupational requirement because the shift allocation could have been easily changed. By contrast, it was held in Wolf v Stadt Frankfurt am Main that a requirement to be under 30 years old when joining the fire service could be a genuine occupational requirement, to ensure fitness.[376] Controversially, the European Court of Justice has repeatedly said that it is within a member state's margin of discretion to say being male is a genuine occupational requirement for work in the military.[377] This was even so, in Sirdar v The Army Board & Secretary of State for Defence,[378] for a lady who applied to work as a chef in the Royal Marines, because the policy on "interoperability" meant every member had to be capable of combat.[379] Cases involving religion are subject to a special provision, so that if a job's functions require adherence to an organisation's ethos, the organisation has an exemption from direct discrimination. In an action for judicial review of the legislation,[380] Richards J rejected that a faith school would be exempt in any way, rather than an actual religious establishment like a church. Even there, it was rejected that a gay person could be dismissed from a job as a cleaner or bookshop worker, if that was incompatible with the religious "ethos", because the ethos would not be a genuine requirement to carry out the job.
In 2014, the gender pay gap in the EU averaged men being paid 16.2% more than women, and the UK's gap was higher than average, at 18.3%.
Indirect discrimination, after a neutral practice puts a member of a group at a particular disadvantage, is not made out if there is an "objective justification". In most cases, this will be a justification based on business necessity.[381] The ECJ, mostly in cases concerning sex discrimination under TFEU art 157, has held that an employer must show a "real need" for the practice that has a disparate impact, and it must be "unrelated" to the protected characteristic.[382] The justification should not involve "generalisations" rather than reasons specific to the workers in question,[383] and budgetary considerations alone are not to be considered an "aim".[384] Many foundational judgments concerned employers who gave fewer benefits to part-time staff than full-time staff. Given the particular disadvantage this caused women it was hard to justify. In domestic equal pay claims based on gender, instead of "objective justification", the old terminology still used is that there must be a "genuine material factor", found in EA 2010 section 69. Despite different headings, the same underlying concepts are present as for objective justification, with the need to show a "legitimate aim" and that action is "proportionate" to such an aim. In Clay Cross (Quarry Services) Ltd v Fletcher[385] Lord Denning MR held that an employer could not justify paying a young man a higher wage than an older lady (who in fact trained him) on the basis that this was what the employer had to pay given the state of the job market. However, in Rainey v Greater Glasgow Health Board[386] the House of Lords held that women NHS prosthetists who were paid 40% less than men prosthetists, who had become contracted through private practices, had no claim because it was agreed that such higher prices were necessary to attract their services. Thus, the "objective justification" was said to be an organisational necessity.[387] In Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority[388] the ECJ held that although a speech therapist being paid less than a male counterpart could not be justified only on the ground that this resulted from different collective agreements, if a disparity came from market forces, this was an objective justification. It has, however, been emphasised that the legislation's purpose is to achieve equal pay, and not fair wages. So in Strathclyde RC v Wallace[389] the House of Lords held that women teachers who had to fill in for an absent male head master were not entitled to be paid the same during that time. This was a different job. It has also been asserted that collective agreements designed to incrementally make a transition to equal pay between jobs rated as equivalent cannot be justified,[390] and can even result in liability for the union that concluded them.[391] Unlike other protected characteristics, under EA 2010 section 13(2), direct age discrimination is open to justification on the same principles, on the basis that everyone will go through the ageing process.[392] This has meant, primarily, that older workers can reach a compulsory retirement age set either by the workplace or the government, on the basis that it is a legitimate way of sharing work between generations.[393]
Disability and positive action[edit]
[show]
v
t
e
Disability cases
Equality Act 2010 ss 6, 13(2), 15, 20-22 and Sch 1 and 8
Chacon Navas v Eurest Colectividades SA (2007) C-13/05
Coleman v Attridge Law [2007] IRLR 88
Jones v Post Office [2001] IRLR 384
Paul v National Probation Service [2004] IRLR 190
Collins v Royal National Theatre Board Ltd [2004] IRLR 395
Archibald v Fife Council [2004] UKHL 32
O'Hanlon v HMRC [2007] EWCA Civ 283
Goodwin v Patent Office [1999] ICR 302
Vicary v British Telecommunications plc [1999] IRLR 680
Lewisham LBC v Malcolm and EHRC [2008] UKHL 43
Eagle Place Services Ltd v Rudd [2010] IRLR 486
see UK labour and equality law
See also: Disability and Affirmative action
Because treating people equally is not by itself enough to achieve equality for everyone, the law requires that employers owe positive duties to disabled people to give preferential treatment. According to Chacón Navas v Eurest Colectividades SA[394] disabilities involve an impairment "which hinders the participation of the person concerned in professional life". This includes all varieties of mental and physical disabilities.[395] Because treating disabled people equally based on ability to perform tasks could easily result in persistence of exclusion from the workforce, employers are bound to do as much as reasonably possible to ensure participation is not hindered in practice. Under the Equality Act 2010 sections 20 to 22, employers have to make "reasonable adjustments". For example, employers may have to change physical features of a workplace, or provide auxiliary aids to work, or adjust their working habits and expectations. In effect, the law views society as being the cause of the "disability" if it fails to ensure people are accommodated, rather than seeing the person's handicap as being merely a personal misfortune. EA 2010 Schedule 8 lists more examples of reasonable adjustments, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission provides guidance. In the leading case, Archibald v Fife Council,[396] it was held that the council had a duty to exempt a lady from competitive interviews for a new job. Mrs Archibald, previously a road sweeper, had lost the ability to walk after complications in surgery. Despite over 100 applications for grades just above a manual worker, in her submission, the employers were fixated on her past history as a sweeper. The House of Lords held it could be appropriate, before such an ordeal, for a worker to fill an existing vacancy without a standard interview procedure. By contrast, in O’Hanlon v Revenue and Customs Commissioners[397] the Court of Appeal rejected that it would be a reasonable adjustment, as Ms O'Hanlon was requesting after falling into clinical depression, for an employer to increase sick pay to full pay, after the expiry of a six-month period that applied to everyone else. The aim is always to ensure that disabilities are not a barrier to full participation in working life, as much as possible.
An increasing number of EU member states, though not yet the UK, require company boards of directors to have gender quotas. For example, Finland requires that companies comply with the standard of a 50-50 gender split, or explain to the market if they do not reach the target.
[show]
v
t
e
Positive action cases
TFEU art 157(4)
Equality Act 2010 ss 158-159
United Steelworkers of America v Weber (1979)
Grutter v Bollinger 539 US 306 (2003)
James v Eastleigh BC [1990] [1990] ICR 768
Kalanke v Freie Hansestadt Bremen (1995)
Marschall v Land Nordrhein Westfalen (1997)
Re Badeck’s application (2000)
Abrahamsson and Anderson v Fogelqvist (2000)
see UK labour and equality law
For characteristics other than disability, "hard" positive discrimination, through privileged contract terms, hiring and firing based on gender, race, sexuality, belief or age, or setting quotas for underrepresented groups in most jobs, is generally unlawful in the EU. This policy, however, leaves open the issue of historical disadvantage, and sub-conscious exclusion, which may not be addressed through ordinary direct and indirect discrimination claims. The EU has permitted "soft" positive action, in contrast to the United States or South Africa, where "affirmative action" operates in many workplaces.[398] Lawful positive action in the EU means, in the case of hiring candidates for work, employers may select someone from an under-represented group, but only if that person has qualifications equal to competitors, with full consideration of the candidate's individual qualities.[399] In Marschall v Land Nordrhein Westfalen[400] a male teacher failed to get a promotion, and a woman did. He complained that the school's policy, to promote women "unless reasons specific to an individual candidate tilt the balance in his favour", was unlawful. The ECJ held the school would not be acting unlawfully if it did in fact follow its policy. By contrast in Abrahamsson and Anderson v Fogelqvist[401] Göteborg University's policy was to hire a woman candidate unless "the difference between the candidates’ qualification is so great that such application would give rise to a breach of the requirement of objectivity". A male candidate, who was not hired over two less qualified women, was successful in claiming discrimination. In addition, according to Re Badeck’s application[402] legitimate positive action measures include quotas in temporary positions, in training, guaranteeing interviews to people with sufficient qualifications, and quotas for people working on representative, administrative or supervisory bodies such as a company's board of directors. This approach, developed initially in ECJ case law, is now reflected in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union article 157(4) and was put into UK law in the Equality Act 2010 sections 157-158.
Atypical work[edit]
Main articles: Part-time contract, Fixed-term contract, and UK agency work
[show]
v
t
e
Sources on atypical work
Part-time Workers Directive 97/81/EC
Part-time Workers Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/1551)
Matthews v Kent and Medway Fire Authority [2006] UKHL 8
O'Brien v Ministry of Justice [2013] UKSC 6
Fixed-Term Work Directive 99/70/EC
Fixed-term Employees Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/2034)
Adeneler v Ellinikos Organismos Galaktos (2006) C-212/04
Del Cerro Alonso v Osakidetza (2007) C-307/05
Employment Agencies Act 1973 (c 35)
Employment Agencies Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/3319)
Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 (c 11)
Temporary and Agency Work Directive 2008/104/EC
Agency Workers Regulations 2010 (SI 2010/93)
Dacas v Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 21
James v Greenwich LBC [2008] EWCA Civ 35
see UK agency, part time and fixed term work
Beyond the Equality Act 2010 three EU Directives,[403] and UK Regulations, require minimum levels of equal treatment for people with part-time, fixed-term or agency work contracts, compared to people with more permanent or full-time jobs. Many people choose atypical work patterns to balance family or social commitments, but many are also in precarious work, where they lack the bargaining power to get better terms. However, the requirements for equal treatment are not uniform, and are often limited. The Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000[404] state that a part-time worker cannot be treated less favourably than a comparable full-time worker. However (like for age) an employer may objectively justify less favourable treatment for both direct and indirect discrimination. Moreover, (similar to equal pay rules) under regulation 2(4) a worker can only compare themselves to real full-time workers who work under the "same type of contract" doing "broadly similar work", and are in the same establishment, or under a common collective agreement. In Matthews v Kent and Medway Fire Authority,[405] the House of Lords held that even though part-time firefighters did not do administrative work, their contracts were still broadly similar to the full-time firefighters. In O'Brien v Ministry of Justice the Supreme Court also rejected that giving part-time judges no pension pro rata was unlawful, and had no objective justification. Although the Ministry argued that it was legitimate to save money, and to recruit quality full-time judges with a pension, Lord Hope and Lady Hale emphasised that budgetary considerations are not relevant, and it was necessary to recruit good part-time staff also.[406] But although rights are strong in law to counteract people being treated differently in the same workplace, part-time workers across the UK economy remain underpaid compared to full-time workers as a whole. Workplaces tend to be structurally segregated, so many jobs, often where women are working, are all part-time while better paying jobs tend to be full-time.[407]
Atypical workers, with people who lost social security and fair incomes, were named the "precariat" class by former ILO director Guy Standing. He advocates a universal basic income to ensure security, funded through tax on wealth.[408]
The Fixed-Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002[409] cover people with contracts that purport to last for a limited duration. The Regulations (unlike the Directive appears to require) were written to only cover "employees" and not the broader group of "workers".[410] In contrast, the European Court of Justice held in Mangold v Helm that equality was a general principle of EU law. This meant that a German Act which required fixed-term contracts be objectively justified after two years work, but gave no protection to workers beyond the age of 52, was unlawful.[411] Likewise, the UK Regulations ban less favourable treatment of fixed-term staff without objective justification.[412] Less generous than other countries, regulation 8 says if an employee has a succession of fixed term contracts lasting over 4 years, the employee is to be treated as having a permanent contract.[413] In practice, UK law already regulated fixed-term work in this respect, because the qualifying period for unfair dismissal will be met even if an employee has had short breaks in employment.[414]
After 21 immigrant cockle pickers died at Morecambe Bay licensing was reintroduced for some employment agencies in the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004.
The Agency Workers Regulations 2010 provide workers some protection against less favourable treatment when they work through an employment agency. However, the right to equal treatment is limited to "basic working conditions", which is defined as pay and their working time, unless the common law, or general EU law principles are applicable.[415] But an agency worker may, unlike part-time or fixed-term employees, appeal to a hypothetical comparator. This left uncertain the position of agency workers protection by the job security, child care and other rights for employees in ERA 1996.[416] While the dominant view, after the UK Supreme Court decision in Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher,[417] is that an agency worker will always qualify as an employee against both the agency and end-user when they work for a wage, the English Court of Appeal had previously issued conflicting judgments on whether an agency worker should have an unfair dismissal claim against the end-employer, the agency, or both or neither.[418] Reflecting their vulnerable position, the regulation of agency work goes beyond anti-discrimination rights, to place a set of duties on employment agents' operations and conduct. Found in the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003[419] agencies are generally prohibited from charging fees to prospective workers. Various other duties include being honest in their job advertising, keeping all information on jobseekers confidential and complying with all employment laws. Originally agencies had to have licenses, and under the oversight of the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate, they risked losing their licenses if found to be acting in violation of the law. The Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 removed the licensing requirement, but this was partially reinstated for agencies in agricultural, shellfish and packing sectors through the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004. In response to the 2004 Morecambe Bay cockling disaster this established another specific regulator, the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, to enforce employment law in those areas.
Free movement and immigration[edit]
[show]
v
t
e
Free movement of workers
TFEU arts 45-48
Free Movement of Workers Regulation 2011
Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden-Württemberg (1986) Case 66/85
Steymann v Staatssecretaris van Justitie (1988) Case 196/87
Trojani v Centre public d’aide sociale (2004) C-456/02
Belgian Football Association v Bosman (1995) C-415/93
Angonese v Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA (2000) C-281/98
Finanzamt Köln Altstadt v Schumacker (1995) C-279/93
Weigel v Finanzlandesdirektion für Vorarlberg (2004) C-387/01
Hendrix v Employee Insurance Institute (2007) C-287/05
Geven v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (2007) C-213/05
Citizens Rights Directive 2004 2004/38/EC
Gravier v City of Liege (1985) Case 293/83
Metock v Minister for Justice (2008) C-127/08
See EU law and free movement
Main articles: United Kingdom immigration law and Freedom of movement for workers
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Immigration to the United Kingdom since 1922
British nationality law
Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962
Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968
Immigration Act 1971
Immigration Rules
Indefinite leave to remain
Leave to enter
UK Visas and Immigration
Immigration to Europe
Illegal immigration to the United Kingdom
Job security[edit]
Main articles: Job security, Unfair dismissal, Wrongful dismissal, and Layoff
UK unemployment tends to spike dramatically with economic crises, as the job security framework is comparatively weak. A database of the world's dismissal regulations is found at www.ilo.org.
The right to secure employment, either in one's current job or in a job that utilises a person's skills in the most socially productive way, is usually seen as crucial for the success of the economy and human development. The aim is to counterbalance the destructive effect on productivity and social costs that come from abuse of managerial power.[420] Consistent with minimal international standards,[421] employees in the United Kingdom have three principal job security rights, introduced originally by the Contracts of Employment Act 1963, the Redundancy Payments Act 1965 and the Industrial Relations Act 1971. First, after one month's work an employee must have at least one week's notice before any dismissal, unless there has been gross misconduct.[422] This minimum rises to two weeks after two years, three weeks after three years, and so on, up to twelve weeks after twelve years. Second, after two years' work, the dismissal must be fair.[423] This means the employer must have a justification based on an employee's capability, conduct, redundancy or another good reason, or the employee can claim damages or the job back from an Employment Tribunal. Third, also after two years' work and if dismissed because the enterprise no longer needs someone doing the employee's job, there is a right to a redundancy payment.[424] Like the notice period, redundancy pay increases according to the number of years worked. Contracts should usually go beyond this bare minimum, but cannot go below. Compared to its European and Commonwealth counterparts, jobs in the UK are relatively insecure. Workers have few ways, except pressure through collective bargaining, to challenge a management's decision about dismissals before they take place. When collective redundancies are proposed, however, EU law has introduced a requirement that employers consult on changes.[425] EU law also introduced a rule that if a business is transferred, for instance, during a merger or acquisition, employees may not have their terms worsened or lose their jobs without a good economic, technical or organisational reason. If employees do lose their work, they may fall back on a minimal system of state insurance, funded primarily through income tax or National Insurance, to collect a "jobseekers allowance", and may make use of public employment agencies to find employment again. The UK government has in the past aimed to create "full employment" however this goal has not necessarily translated into secure and stable work.
Wrongful dismissal[edit]
[show]
v
t
e
Wrongful dismissal cases
Employment Rights Act 1996 s 86
Wilson v Racher [1974] ICR 428
Johnson v Unisys Ltd [2001] UKHL 13
Gunton v Richmond upon Thames LBC [1980] ICR 755
Boyo v London Borough of Lambeth [1994] EWCA Civ 28
Société Générale, London Branch v Geys [2012] UKSC 63
McClelland v NI General Health Services [1957] 1 WLR 594
Taylor v Secretary of State for Scotland [2000] UKHL 28
Horkulak v Cantor Fitzgerald Int [2004] EWCA Civ 1287
Reda v Flag Ltd [2002] UKPC 38
Eastwood v Magnox Electric plc [2004] UKHL 35
Barber v Somerset CC [2004] UKHL 13
Hill v CA Parsons & Co Ltd [1972] Ch 305
Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital [2011] UKSC 58
see UK labour law and wrongful dismissal
Main article: Wrongful dismissal
Wrongful dismissal refers to a termination of employment which contravenes a contract's terms, whether expressly agreed or implied by the courts. This depends on construction of the contract, read in the context of the statutory charter of rights for employees in the ERA 1996.[426] In the old common law cases, the only term implied by the courts regarding termination was that employers had to give reasonable notice, and what was "reasonable" essentially depended on the professional status of the employee. In Creen v Wright,[427] Lord Coleridge CJ held that a master mariner was entitled to a month's notice, though lower class workers could probably expect much less, "respectable" employees could expect more, and the period between wage payments would be a guide.[428] Now the ERA 1996 section 86 prescribes that an employee should receive one week's notice before dismissal after one month's work, two weeks' notice after two years' work, and so forth up to twelve weeks for twelve years. The employer can give pay in lieu of notice, so long as the weeks' wages for the notice are paid in full. Often, contracts of employment contain express terms regarding a proper disciplinary procedure to be followed if someone is to be dismissed for disputes at work: this is encouraged by the fact that dismissals will often be regarded as unfair if . If a contractual disciplinary procedure is not followed, the employee may claim damages for the time it would have taken and the potential that she would still be employed.[429] In Societe Generale, London Branch v Geys, the Supreme Court affirmed that a wrongful repudiation of a contract by the employer automatically terminates the agreement, because to do so would be to reward the wrongdoer. Only if an employee accepts the purported termination will the contract end, and until then the employer is liable for paying wages.[430]
In Wilson v Racher, involving a gardener denigrated by his employer at Tolethorpe Hall, Edmund Davies LJ held employment relations require "a duty of mutual respect".[431]
The requirements of notice and any disciplinary procedure do not apply if the employee was the one to have repudiated the contract, either expressly, or by conduct. As in the general law of contract, if an employee's conduct is so seriously bad that it manifests to the reasonable person an intention to not be bound, then the employer may dismiss the employee without notice. But if the employer is not justified in making a summary dismissal, the employee has a claim under ERA 1996 section 13 for a shortfall in wages. The same principle, that a serious breach of contract gives the other side the option to terminate,[432] also works in favour of employees. In Wilson v Racher[433] a gardener was bullied by his employer, the heir of Tolethorpe Hall, and gave him a rude telling off for not picking up some string on the lawn. Mr Wilson, the gardener, told Mr Racher "get stuffed, go and shit yourself". The Court of Appeal held that the employer's attitude meant this breakdown in trust and confidence was the employer's own doing, and because the law no longer saw employment as a "Czar-serf" relationship, Mr Wilson was in the right and was wrongfully dismissed. The remedy for breach of contract, following a long tradition that specific performance should not result in draconian consequences or binding hostile parties to continue working together,[434] is typically monetary compensation to put the claimant in the same position as if the contract had been properly performed. However, in Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital,[435] the Supreme Court held that an injunction is available to restrain breach of contract for the employer's failure to follow a doctor's contractual disciplinary procedure. This indicated that specific performance should always in principle be available, particularly in large organisations where people can be shifted to avoid personality conflicts.[436]
The primary implied term of an employment contract that may be broken is mutual trust and confidence. In Johnson v Unisys Ltd[437] the House of Lords held by 4 to 1 that damages for breach of mutual trust and confidence at the point of dismissal should not exceed the statutory limit on unfair dismissal claims, because otherwise the statutory limits would be undermined. This limit was £74,200 in 2013, though the median award was merely £4,560.[438] This meant a computer worker who developed a psychiatric illness following a wrongful dismissal procedure could not claim his total economic losses, which would have amounted to £400,000 in damages. However, if the breach occurs while the employment relationship subsists, that limit is inapplicable. So in Eastwood v Magnox Electric plc,[439] a school teacher who also suffered psychiatric injury, but as a result of harassment and victimisation while he still worked, could claim for a full measure of damages for the breach of mutual trust and confidence. In any event the limit is merely implied and depends on construction of the contract, so that it may be opted out of by express words providing for a higher sum, for example, by expressly providing for a disciplinary procedure.[440] A notable absence of an implied term at common law historically (i.e. before the development of mutual trust and confidence[441]) was that an employer would have to give any good reasons for a dismissal.[442] This was recommended to be changed in the Donovan Report 1968, and it launched the present system of unfair dismissal.
Unfair dismissal[edit]
[show]
v
t
e
Unfair dismissal cases
ILO Termination of Employment Convention, 1982 C 158
Employment Rights Act 1996 ss 94-132
R (Seymour-Smith) v SS for Employment [2000] UKHL 12
Gisda Cyf v Barratt [2010] UKSC 41
Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd v Lineham [1992] ICR 183
Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp [1977] EWCA Civ 2
Buckland v Bournemouth University [2010] EWCA Civ 121
Adamas Ltd v Cheung [2011] UKPC 32
Notcutt v Universal Equipment Co Ltd [1986] EWCA Civ 3
Ford v Warwickshire CC [1983] 2 AC 71
British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell [1978] ICR 303
Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones [1983] ICR 17
Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd [1982] ICR 156
British Leyland UK Ltd v Swift [1981] IRLR 91
HSBC Bank plc v Madden [2000] EWCA Civ 3030
Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] UKHL 8
Port of London Authority v Payne [1993] EWCA Civ 26
Norton Tool Co Ltd v Tewson [1972] EW Misc 1
Dunnachie v Kingston-upon-Hull City Council [2004] UKHL 36
Nelson v British Broadcasting Corporation (No 2) [1980] ICR 110
see UK labour law and unfair dismissal
Main article: Unfair dismissal
While "wrongful" dismissal concerns breaches of the terms of an employment contract, "unfair" dismissal is a claim based on the Employment Rights Act 1996 sections 94 to 134A. It governs the reasons for which an employer terminates a contract, and requires they fall into the statutory definition of what is "fair". The Industrial Relations Act 1971, following the Donovan Report 1968, set up its structure.[443] Under ERA 1996 section 94 any employee, who is employed for over two years,[444] may claim for an Employment Tribunal (composed of a judge, an employer and an employee representative) to review the decision. Temporary or seasonal breaks in employment, such as for teachers who are not in class over summer, cannot break the continuity of the contract for the qualifying period, even if a contract purports to be for a fixed term.[445] An employee is only "dismissed" if the employer has decided to end the work relationship, or if they have constructively dismissed the employee through a serious breach of mutual trust and confidence. An employee will not have a claim if they have voluntarily resigned, though a court must be satisfied that someone truly intended to forgo the legal right to sue for unfair dismissal. In Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd v Lineham[446] Mr Lineham used the toilet at work after drinking at the pub. Afterwards, in response to the manager rebuking him in front of other staff, he threw down his keys and drove off. He claimed he was dismissed, and the Tribunal agreed that at no time had Mr Lineham resigned. By contrast in Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp[447] Mr Sharp walked off because the company welfare officer refused to let him collect holiday pay immediately. Although Mr Sharp was in financial difficulty, this was due to his absences, and so he was not justified in leaving, and not constructively dismissed.[448] Under ERA 1996 section 203(1), statutory rights may not be excluded or limited, although section 203(2) and (3) still allows employers and employees to settle a legal claim, so long as the compromise agreement is made freely and with independent legal advice.[449] It has also been held that an employee is not dismissed if the relationship is frustrated. In Notcutt v Universal Equipment Co (London) Ltd[450] a man's heart attack meant he could no longer work. The employer paid no wages during the ordinary notice period, but was successful in arguing that the contract was impossible to perform and therefore void. This doctrine, applicable as a default rule in general contract law, is controversial since unlike commercial parties it will be rare that an employee has the foresight or ability to contract around the rule.[451] The Supreme Court recently emphasised in Gisda Cyf v Barratt that the "need to segregate intellectually common law principles relating to contract law, even in the field of employment, from statutorily conferred rights is fundamental."[452] This meant that when an employee claimed unfair dismissal, after accusations of allegedly inappropriate behaviour at a private party, the three month time limit for her claim only began running when the employer had actually notified her. The general contract law principle that notifications take effect when arriving during business hours was not even "a preliminary guide" to the interpretation of the right to a fair dismissal.[453]
In many EU countries, including Germany,[454] the work council which is elected by staff may prevent dismissals taking effect until court confirms them as being socially justified. UK employees remain more vulnerable, and must usually be out of work while making claims to an Employment Tribunal.
Once it is established that a dismissal took place, the employer must show that its reason for dismissing the employee was "fair". Dismissal on grounds of union membership,[455] or one of a number of grounds set out in sections 99 to 107 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, will be automatically unfair. Otherwise the employer has the opportunity to show the dismissal is fair if it falls within five main categories listed in ERA 1996 section 98.[456] The dismissal must have been because of the employee's capability or qualifications, because of conduct, because the employee was redundant, because continued employment would contravene a law, or because of "some other substantial reason". If the employer has an argument based on one of these categories, then the tribunal evaluates whether the employer's actual decision fell within a "reasonable range of responses", i.e. that a reasonable employer could have acted the same way.[457] Thus the review standard lies in between an outright perversity, or "Wednesbury unreasonableness" test and a forthright reasonable person test. The test arguably requires Tribunals to evaluate the employer's conduct according to good enterprise practice, by analogy to the Bolam test in tort.[458] The "proportionality test" (requiring the employer's action is appropriate, necessary and reasonable in pursuit of a legitimate aim) has also been proposed as an alternative,[459] which would have the advantage of deferring to the employer's aim, if legitimate, but scrutinising whether its actions were proportionate. In practice, the Court of Appeal has given conflicting judgments and remains unable to articulate what the test means, begging the question of how a "hypothetical reasonable employer" standard under section 98(4)(a) should actually be applied.[460] It has been repeated that Tribunals should not substitute their judgment for the employer's. However, there is considerable room for Tribunals to assess the facts and come to their own conclusions, which can only be appealed on legal grounds, and not on their judgment of good workplace relations. For example, in a conduct case, HSBC Bank plc v Madden,[461] the Court of Appeal held that it was acceptable for a Tribunal to have decided that dismissing an employee for potential involvement in theft of credit cards was fair, even though an actual police investigation turned up no evidence.[462] By contrast, in Bowater v Northwest London Hospitals NHS Trust,[463] an employer argued a nurse who, while physically restraining a naked patient who was unconscious and having a seizure, said "It's been a few months since I have been in this position with a man underneath me" was lewd and deserved dismissal for her misconduct. The Tribunal said the dismissal was unfair and the Court of Appeal held the Tribunal had competently exercised its discretion in granting the unfair dismissal claim. The absence of a role for elected worker representatives in assessing the fairness of the employer or manager's conduct in the UK contrasts to many EU member states. While courts act as a final check, it is often thought that the parties best placed to resolve disputes would be representatives of all staff members, who (unlike an employer or manager) usually have fewer conflicts of interest in dismissal disputes.
ACAS, headquartered at Euston Tower, issues a binding Code of Practice on how to handle workplace disputes and potential dismissals.
While some courts have chosen to be more deferential to the employer's substantive reasons for dismissal,[464] they emphasise more strongly the importance of employers having a fair process. The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service Code of Practice (2009) explains that good industry practice for disciplinaries requires, among other things, written warnings, a fair hearing by people who have no reason to side against the employee, or with any manager involved in the dispute, and the opportunity for union representation. Often a company handbook will include its own system, which if not followed will likely mean the dismissal was unfair.[465] Nevertheless, in Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd[466] the House of Lords held that, in a case where a van driver was told he was redundant on the spot, if an employer can show the dismissal would be made regardless of whether a procedure was followed, damages can be reduced to zero. In the Employment Act 2002, Parliament made an abortive attempt to instil some kind of mandatory minimum procedure for everybody, but after complaints from employers and unions alike that it was merely encouraging a "tick-box" culture, it was repealed in the Employment Act 2008.[467] Now if the ACAS Code is not followed, and this is unreasonable, an unfair dismissal award can be increased by 25 per cent.[468] Generally, under ERA 1996 sections 119 and 227, the principle for a "basic" unfair dismissal award is that, with a cap of £350 per week and a maximum of 20 weeks, an employee should receive one week's pay for each year employed if aged between 22 and 40, 1½ weeks if over 40 and ½ a week if under 22. By ERA 1996 section 123, the employee may also be entitled to the more significant, but discretionary "compensatory" award. This should take into account the actual losses of the employee as just and equitable, based on loss of immediate and future wages, the manner of the dismissal and loss of future unfair dismissal protection and redundancy rights.[469] This is capped, but usually increased in line with RPI inflation. It was £74,200 in 2013, though the median award of a successful claimant was merely £4,560.[470] Very few claimants are successful in securing reinstatement, although if they are suspended from their workplace and colleagues, the evidence suggests that the experience of litigation sours the relationship so that the employee will no longer wish to return.[471] It is therefore important that in 2011 the Supreme Court emphasised in Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital that in principle an employee may secure an injunction to continue working while internal disciplinary procedures are followed.[472] Particularly given the difficulty of finding alternative employment while removed from work, it is not clear why a staff member who retains the support of his or her colleagues (as opposed to a manager who potentially has a conflict of interest) should not also be able to continue working until a dismissal is confirmed by a court.[473]
Redundancy[edit]
[show]
v
t
e
Redundancy cases
ERA 1996 ss and TULRCA 1992
Lesney Products & Co v Nolan [1976]
North Riding Garages v Butterwick [1967] 2 QB 56
Murphy v Epsom College [1984]
Safeway Stores plc v Burrell [1997]
Murray v Foyle Meats Ltd [1999]
High Table Ltd v Horst [1997]
Hollister v National Farmers’ Union [1979] ICR 542
Richmond Precision Engineering Ltd v Pearce [1985] IRLR 179
Catamaran Cruisers Ltd v Williams [1994] IRLR 384
Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd [1982] ICR 156
British Aerospace plc v Green [1995]
Rolls Royce plc v Unite the Union [2009]
ERA 1996 s 141
Thomas Wragg & Sons Ltd v Wood [1976] ICR 313
Thomas & Betts Manufacturing Ltd v Harding [1980] IRLR 255
Optical Express Ltd v Williams [2007] IRLR 936
see UK labour law and unfair dismissal
See also: Redundancy in United Kingdom law, Unfair dismissal, and Layoff
Redundancies are a special kind of dismissal, which attract specific regulation. Since the Redundancy Payments Act 1965,[474] staff must receive a payment for losing their jobs if the employer no longer has an economic need for their job. This policy is designed to internalise some of the social costs that employers create if they dismiss staff, to try and disincentivise unnecessary job losses, and contribute to employees' costs in unemployment. Under ERA 1996 section 162, employees over age 40 receive 1½ weeks' pay per year they had worked, employees aged 22 to 40 receive 1 week's pay per year worked, and employees age 21 or less receive half a week's pay, though the upper limit was £464 per week in 2014. Dismissal for redundancy counts "fair" in substance under ERA 1996 section 98, but the employer may still carry out an unfair procedure to dismiss the redundant employees. Under the Employment Rights Act 1996 section 139, a "redundancy" exists when an employer's demand for an employee's role ceases or diminishes.[475] In situations where employees have lost their jobs, this may be straightforward. In cases where an employer uses its discretion practically to worsen the employees' position the answer may depend on the employees' contracts. In Lesney Products & Co v Nolan[476] a toy company stopped giving its workers overtime. Some refused to work. They were dismissed, and the workers claimed they were redundant. Lord Denning MR held they were not made "redundant" by their terms being changed, even worsened, because "nothing should be done to impair the ability of employers to reorganise their work force and their times and conditions of work so as to improve efficiency." Apparently, they had simply left stopped working of their own accord. This view is controversial, because if the total wage bill spent by the employer is reduced, it would follow that demand for work (reflected in the employer's willingness to pay) must also be diminished. Thus, other courts have suggested the contract terms are irrelevant, and that the test should be purely based on the economic reality of diminished demand.[477] Employers can also argue that a dismissal is for "some other substantial reason". In Hollister v National Farmers’ Union[478] a farmer's refusal to accept decreased pension entitlements, after a consultation process, was said to be a "substantial" reason for dismissal. It is not clear whether worsening employees' contract terms, without their consent or collective approval, was envisaged by the Act as way to evade redundancy payments.
"... the Bill gives reality to the idea that... "a man has some rights in his job just as an employer holds rights in his property, and his rights gain in value with the years." I would say to the House that if a man is deprived of those rights by economic circumstances outside his control, he ought to be compensated.... The purpose of redundancy pay is to compensate a worker for loss of job, irrespective of whether that leads to any unemployment. It is to compensate him for the loss of security, possible loss of earnings and fringe benefits, and the uncertainty and anxiety of change of job."
Redundancy Payments Bill, Second Reading, Mr Ray Gunter, Hansard HC Deb (26 April 1965) vol 711, cols 33-160
Although workers could be redundant, the employer may still be liable for unfair dismissal by following an unfair procedure. The procedure the employer follows to select employees to make redundant must be procedurally fair. In Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd[479] Browne-Wilkinson J held that the proper steps should be to (1) give all warning possible (2) consult the union (3) agree objective criteria (4) follow those criteria, and (5) always check there if there is alternative employment rather than dismissal. This meant that the managers, who had selected workers to lose their jobs based on personal preferences, had unfairly dismissed the workforce. The criteria that the employer uses must be observable, and reviewable. However, employers do not need to disclose to employees all the details of their reasoning when they select people for redundancy unless there is a specific complaint of unfairness.[480] A last in, first out policy, as used in many collective agreements will be regarded as fair. For example, in Rolls Royce plc v Unite the Union,[481] Rolls Royce plc challenged a collective agreement which gave extra points in a selection procedure for years of service as being unlawful discrimination against younger workers (who it wished to retain). The Court of Appeal agreed with the union that this represented a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim of rewarding seniority, particularly since older workers might find alternative employment much harder to secure. If possible, employers should attempt to redeploy redundant staff within their firm. Under ERA 1996 section 141 an employee should accept a suitable offer for redeployment, and will lose entitlement to redundancy if he or she declines it. 'Suitable' means substantially similar in terms of status, wages and types of duties.[482] For example, in Thomas Wragg & Sons Ltd v Wood the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that it was reasonable for Mr Wood to refuse an alternative job offer the day before his termination took effect. He was therefore redundant.[483] There is also, under section 138, a right to refuse an alternative job to which an employee is redeployed after a four-week trial period if it would be reasonable.[484] However, redeployment remains an option for the employer that gives it greater scope to avoid redundancy payments. A right for the employee to be redeployed does not yet exist, except to the extent that the employer must consult about redeployment possibilities when more than 20 employees could be redundant.[485]
Undertaking transfers and insolvency[edit]
See also: Mergers and acquisitions in United Kingdom law and UK insolvency law
[show]
v
t
e
Transfer of undertaking sources
Transfers of Undertakings Directive 2001/23/EC arts 3-4
Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Emp) Regs 2006 r 7
Litster v Forth Dry Dock [1988] UKHL 10
Wilson v St Helens BC [1998] UKHL 37
TUD 2001 art 5 and TUPER 2006 r 4
Credit Suisse Ltd v Lister [1998] EWCA Civ 1551
University of Oxford v Humphreys [1999] EWCA Civ 3050
TUD 2001 arts 3(3) and TUPER 2006 r 5
Parkwood Leisure Ltd v Alemo-Herron (2013) C-426/11
TUD 2001 arts 1 and TUPER 2006 r 3
Spijkers v Gebroeders Benedik Abattoir CV (1986) C-24/85
Süzen v Zehnacker Gebaeudereingung GmbH (1997) C-13/95
Oy Liikenne Ab v Liskojärvi (2001) C-172/99
RCO Support Services v Unison [2002] EWCA Civ 464
TUD 2001 art 5 and TUPER 2006 r 8
SS for Trade and Industry v Slater [2007] IRLR 928 (EAT)
Oakland v Wellswood (Yorkshire) Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1094
see UK labour law and business transfers
Another context in which the common law left workers particularly vulnerable was where the business for which they worked was transferred between one person and another. In Nokes v Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd[486] it was held (albeit to protect the worker from draconian sanctions in the arcane Employers and Workmen Act 1875) that an employment contract could not transfer without the consent of the parties involved. Consequently, in a situation where company A sold its assets (including contracts) to company B, the employment relationship would sever and the only claim a worker would have for dismissal would be against company A. Particularly from the 1950s, the view was increasingly accepted across Europe that workers have something more than a personal right, and akin to a property right in their jobs.[487] Just as the transfer of a freehold property between two landlords would not mean that a tenant could be evicted,[488] the first Transfers of Undertakings Directive, passed in 1978 and updated in 2001 (often still referred to as the "Acquired Rights Directive"), required that a business transferee would have to provide a good economic, technical or organisational reason if they were either to not retain all previous employees, or wanted to make detrimental variations to their workers' contracts. This means that the new employer who is a transferee of a business through an asset sale is in no better position than would be a new owner who gained control of a business by buying out a company's shares: contractual variations require the employees' consent and dismissal rights remain as if it were the old employer. As implemented by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, a clear example where employees contracts transfer was in Litster v Forth Dry Dock.[489] The House of Lords held that a purposive interpretation is to be given to the legislation so that where 12 dockworkers were sacked an hour before a business sale, their contracts remained in effect if the employees would still be there in absence of an unfair dismissal. This does not, however, mean that employees unfairly dismissed before a sale have a right to their jobs back, because national law's normal remedy remains with a preference for damages over specific performance.[490] The same principle goes for any variation that works to the detriment of the employee. So the transferee employer may not (without a good business reason) for example, try to impose a single new gardening clause[491] or withdraw tenure, or the employee will have a claim for constructive dismissal.[492]
An acute question for the TUPE Regulations, particularly in the years when the Conservative government was implementing a policy of shrinking the size of the public sector, was the extent they applied to jobs being outsourced, typically by a public body, like a local council, or changed between businesses in a competitive tender process for public procurement. On this point a series of ECJ decisions came to the view that there could be a relevant transfer, covered by the Directive, even where there was no contractual link between a transferor and a transferee business,[493] so long as the business entity retained its "identity". In turn the "identity" of a business would be determined by the degree to which the business' factors of production remained the same before and after a sale.[494] It could be that no employees were hired after an asset sale, but the sacked employees would still have a claim because all their old workplace and capital equipment was being used by the new employer. It is also relevant to what extent a business is capital or labour-intensive. So in Oy Liikenne Ab v Liskojärvi[495] the ECJ held that it was unlikely that 45 Helsinki bus drivers' contracts were transferred, between the company that lost the contract and the new bus company that won it, even though 33 drivers were rehired, because "bus transport cannot be regarded as an activity based essentially on manpower". On the other hand, employees will benefit when a new employer offers old staff their jobs, the intention to rehire makes it more likely the court will deem there to be a transfer.[496]
[show]
v
t
e
Employees and insolvency
ILO Employer's Insolvency Convention 1992 C 173
Insolvency Protection Directive 2008/94/EC
Francovich v Italy (1990) C-6/90
Employment Rights Act 1996 ss 166-170 and 182-190
McMeechan v Secretary of State for Employment [1997] ICR 549
Buchan v SS for Trade and Industry [1997] IRLR 80
SS for Trade and Industry v Bottrill [2000] EWCA Civ 781
Regeling v Bedrijfsverg de Metaalnijverheid (1999) C-125/97
Mann v Secretary of State for Employment [1999] IRLR 566
Robins v SS for Work and Pensions (2007) C-278/05
Insolvency Act 1986 s 176ZA and Sch B1, para 99
Re Allders Department Stores Ltd [2005] BCC 289
Krasner v McMath [2005] EWCA Civ 1072
see UK labour law and UK insolvency law
Often business transfers take place when a company has plunged into an insolvency procedure. If a company enters liquidation, which aims to wind down the business and sell off the assets, TUPER 2006 regulation 8(7) states that the rules on transfer will not apply.[497] The main objective, however, in an insolvency procedure particularly since the Cork Report and the Enterprise Act 2002, is to effect rescues through the system of company administration. An administrator's task under the Insolvency Act 1986 Schedule B1, paragraph 3, is either to rescue the company as a going concern, rescue the business typically by finding a suitable buyer and thus save jobs, or as a last resort put the company into liquidation. If employees are kept on after an administrator is appointed for more than 14 days, under paragraph 99 the administrator becomes responsible for adopting their contracts. The liability on contracts is limited to "wages and salaries".[498] This includes pay, holiday pay, sick pay and occupational pension contributions, but has been held to not include compensation for unfair dismissal cases,[499] wrongful dismissal,[500] or protective awards for failure to consult the workforce before redundancies.[501] If the business rescue does ultimately fail, then such money due employees achieves the status of "super priority" among different creditors' claims.
The Insolvency Act 1986 priority list
1. Fixed charge holders
2. Insolvency practitioner fees and expenses, s 176ZA
3. Preferential creditors, ss 40, 115, 175, 386 and Sch 6
4. Ring fenced fund for unsecured creditors, s 176A and SI 2003/2097
5. Floating charge holders
6. Unsecured creditors, s 74(2)(f)
7. Interest on debts proved in winding up, s 189
8. Money due to a member under a contract to redeem or repurchase shares not completed before winding up, Companies Act 2006 s 735
9. Debts due to members under s 74(2)(f)
10. Repayment of residual interests to preference, and then ordinary shareholders.
Sources: Insolvency Act 1986 and Companies Act 2006
The priority list in insolvency sees creditors with fixed security (typically banks) get paid first. Second are preferential creditors. Third are unsecured creditors up to a limit of £600,000. Fourth are floating charge holders (usually banks again). Fifth are remaining debts to unsecured creditors (in the unlikely event that anything remains). Sixth are "deferred debts" (typically to company insiders). Last are shareholders.[502] Among the preferential creditors, the insolvency practitioners' fees together with adopted contracts attain super-priority. Otherwise, employees wages and pensions still have preferential status, but only up to an £800 limit, a figure which has remained unchanged since 1986.[503] Employees having priority among creditors, albeit not above fixed security holders, dates back to 1897,[504] and is justified on the ground that employees are particularly incapable, unlike banks, of diversifying their risk, and forms one of the requirements in the ILO Protection of Workers' Claims (Employer's Insolvency) Convention.[505] Often this limited preference is not enough, and can take a long time to realise. Reflecting the Insolvency Protection Directive[506] under ERA 1996 section 166 any employee[507] may lodge a claim with the National Insurance Fund for outstanding wages. Under ERA 1996 section 182 the amount claimable is the same as that for unfair dismissal (£350 in 2010) for a limit of 8 weeks. If an employee has been unpaid for a longer period, she may choose the most beneficial 8 weeks.[508] The Pensions Act 2004 governs a separate system for protecting pension claims, through the Pension Protection Fund. This aims to fully insure all pension claims.[509] Together with minimum redundancy payments, the guarantees of wages form a meagre cushion which requires more of a systematic supplementation when people remain unemployed.
Unemployment[edit]
See also: Unemployment and Unemployment in the United Kingdom
Unemployment rate 1971 to 2014.
After the 1979 victory of Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives, the unemployment rate skyrocketed to its highest in 1984.
Poor Law Amendment Act 1834 and Royal Commission into the Operation of the Poor Laws 1832
National Insurance Act 1911 and National Insurance
Karl Marx, Das Kapital (1867) and reserve army of labour
Unemployment Act 1934
Great Depression in the United Kingdom
White Paper, Employment Policy (May 1944) Cmd 6527
W Beveridge, Full Employment in a Free Society (1944)
A W Phillips (1958) 'The Relation between Unemployment and the Rate of Change of Money Wage Rates in the United Kingdom, 1861–1957, Economica
Supplementary Benefit, Statutory sick pay and Income Support
Jobseekers Act 1995 (c 18) and Jobseeker's Allowance and Jobcentre Plus
Jobseekers Act 1995 s 19, disparity in definitions on misconduct
New Deal (United Kingdom)
Youth unemployment in the United Kingdom
Employment Act of 1946 and the Humphrey–Hawkins Full Employment Act of 1978 in the United States, and full employment
Automatic stabilisers, effective aggregate demand, fiscal stimulus, natural rate of unemployment
Public employment agency
Employment Agencies Act 1973
Jobcentre Plus
Income Support, means tested benefit for people on low incomes
Severe Disablement Allowance replaced by Incapacity benefit in 2001, replaced by Employment and Support Allowance 2008
Housing Benefit
Enforcement and tribunals[edit]
Main articles: Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal
The main method of enforcement of labour law is through the Employment Tribunal. A fee must be paid to submit a claim. Appeals are made to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Appeals can be made only on questions of law or where the Employment Tribunal's treatment of the facts have amounted to an error of law (for example, where there was no evidence to support a particular finding of fact by the Tribunal or where the Tribunal's decision was perverse).[510]
Under the Equality Act 2006,[511] a new Equality and Human Rights Commission was established, subsuming specialist bodies from before. Its role is in research, promotion and raising awareness. It does not have enforcement powers. An important part of the Equality and Human Rights Commission has been strategic litigation (advising and funding cases which could significantly advance the law) and developing codes of best practice for employers to use.
In October 2014, the Liberal Democrat Party suggested that a new Workplace Rights Agency be created as an alternative method of enforcement of labour law, while in 2015 before losing his seat the former Liberal-Democrat business minister, Vince Cable, admitted that his Ministry's introduction of Tribunal fees was "a very bad move".[512]
Employment Tribunals Act 1996
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 ss 7-24, amending the ETA 1996 to require mandatory pre-hearing conciliation
Employment Tribunals (Increase of Maximum Deposit) Order 2012/149 art 2, increasing tribunal fees to £1000 under ETA 1996 s 9(2)(a)
Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Act 1998
Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
Central Arbitration Committee
Health and Safety Executive
Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate
Gangmasters Licensing Authority
Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Equality and Human Rights Commission
International labour law[edit]
[show]
v
t
e
International labour cases
ILO Declaration of Fundamental Rights of 1998
Singapore Ministerial Declaration (13 December 1996)
Procurement Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 arts 7-8, 15 and 27
Brussels I Regulation (EC) 44/2001, recital 13, arts 18-20
Rome I Regulation (EC) 593/2008, recitals 34-5, art 8
Lawson v Serco Ltd [2006] UKHL 3
Duncombe v Secretary for Children [2011] UKSC 14
Ravat v Halliburton Ltd [2012] UKSC 1
Posted Workers Directive 96/71/EC art 3
Laval Ltd v Swedish Builders Union (2008) C-319/05
The Rosella (2008) C-438/05
see Labour law
Main articles: International labour law and Private international law
Since the industrial revolution the labour movement has been concerned how economic globalisation would weaken the bargaining power of workers, as their employers could move to hire workers abroad without the protection of the labour standards at home.[513] Following World War One, the Treaty of Versailles contained the first constitution of a new International Labour Organization founded on the principle that "labour is not a commodity", and for the reason that "peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice".[514] The primary role of the ILO has been to coordinate principles of international labour law by issuing ILO Conventions, which codify labour laws on all matters. Members of the ILO can voluntarily adopt and ratify the conventions by enacting the rules in their domestic law. For instance, the first Hours of Work (Industry) Convention, 1919 requires a maximum of a 48-hour week, and has been ratified by 52 out of 185 member states. The UK ultimately refused to ratify the Convention, as did many current EU members states, although the Working Time Directive adopts its principles, subject to the individual opt-out.[515] The present constitution of the ILO comes from the Declaration of Philadelphia 1944, and under the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work 1998 classified eight conventions[516] as core. Together these require freedom to join a union, bargain collectively and take action (Conventions Nos 87 and 98) abolition of forced labour (29 and 105) abolition labour by children before the end of compulsory school (138 and 182) and no discrimination at work (Nos 100 and 111). Compliance with the core Conventions is obligatory from the fact of membership, even if the country has not ratified the Convention in question. To ensure compliance, the ILO is limited to gathering evidence and reporting on member states' progress, so that publicity will put public and international pressure to reform the laws. Global reports on core standards are produced yearly, while individual reports on countries who have ratified other Conventions are compiled on a bi-annual or perhaps less frequent basis.
As one of the few international organisations with real enforcement power through trade sanctions, the WTO has been the target for calls by labour lawyers to incorporate global standards of the International Labour Organization
Because the ILOs enforcement and sanction mechanisms are weak, there has been significant discussion about incorporating labour standards in the World Trade Organisation's operation, since its formation in 1994. The WTO oversees, primarily, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which is a treaty aimed at reducing customs, tariffs and other barriers to free import and export of goods, services and capital between its 157 member countries. Unlike for the ILO, if the WTO rules on trade are contravened, member states who secure a judgment by the Dispute Settlement procedures (effectively a judicial process) may retaliate through trade sanctions. This could include reimposition of targeted tariffs against the non-compliant country. Proponents of an integrated approach have called for a "social clause" to be inserted into the GATT agreements, for example by amending article XX, which gives an exception to the general trade barrier reduction rules allowing imposition of sanctions for breaches of human rights. An explicit reference to core labour standards could allow action where a WTO member state is found to be in breach of ILO standards. Opponents argue that such an approach could backfire and undermine labour rights, as a country's industries, and therefore its workforce, are necessarily harmed but without any guarantee that labour reform would take place. Furthermore, it was argued in the Singapore Ministerial Declaration 1996 that "the comparative advantage of countries, particularly low-age developing countries, must in no way be put into question."[517] On this view, countries ought to be able to take advantage of low wages and poor conditions at work as a comparative advantage in order to boost their exports. It is disputed that business will relocate production to low wage countries from higher wage countries such as the UK, because that choice is said to depend on productivity of workers. However, the view of many labour lawyers and economists remains that more trade, when workers have weaker bargaining power and less mobility, still allows business to opportunistically take advantage of workers by moving production, and that a coordinated multilateral approach with targeted measures against specific exports is preferable.[518] While the WTO has yet to incorporate labour rights into its procedures for dispute settlements, many countries began to make bilateral agreements that protected core labour standards instead.[519] Moreover, in domestic tariff regulations not yet touched by the WTO agreements, countries have given preference to other countries who do respect core labour rights, for example under the EU Tariff Preference Regulation, articles 7 and 8.[520]
In Duncombe, the Supreme Court found an employee of the European School, Karlsruhe in Germany was covered by UK labour rights because their employer was the UK government.[521] Because labour rights should not be undercut by a "race to the bottom", conflict of laws principles allow workers to claim rights from the more favourable jurisdiction.
While the debate over labour standards applied by the ILO and the WTO seeks to balance standards with free movement of capital globally, conflicts of laws (or private international law) issues arise where workers move from home to go abroad. If a worker from the UK performs part of her job in other countries (a "peripatetic" worker) or if a worker is engaged in the UK to work as an expatriate abroad, an employer may seek to characterise the contract of employment as being governed by other countries' laws, where labour rights may be less favourable than at home. In Lawson v Serco Ltd[522] three joined appeals went to the House of Lords. Mr Lawson worked for a multinational business on Ascension Island, a British territory as a security guard. Mr Botham worked in Germany for the Ministry of Defence. Mr Crofts, and his copilots, worked mostly in the air for a Hong Kong airline, though his contract stated he was based at Heathrow. All sought to claim unfair dismissal, but their employers argued they should not be covered by the territorial reach of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Lord Hoffmann held that, first, if workers are in Great Britain, they are covered. Second, peripatetic workers like Mr Crofts would be covered if they are ordinarily working in the UK, but that this could take account of the company's basings policy. Third, if workers were expatriate the general rule was they would not be covered, but that exceptionally if there was a "close connection" between the work and the UK they would be covered. This meant that Lawson and Botham would have claims, because both Lawson and Botham's position was in a British enclave, which made a close enough connection. Subsequent cases have emphasised that the categories of expatriate worker who will exceptionally be covered are not closed. So in Duncombe v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families[523] an employee of the UK government teaching in EU schools could claim unfair dismissal because their employer held their connection close to the UK. Then, in Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd[524] an employee in Libya, working for a German company that was part of the American multinational oil conglomerate Halliburton, was still covered by UK unfair dismissal rights because he was given an assurance that his contract would come under UK law. This established a close connection. The result is that access to mandatory employment rights mirrors the framework for contractual claims under the EU Rome I Regulation article 8.[525] It is also necessary that a UK court has jurisdiction to hear a claim, which under the Brussels I Regulation articles 20 to 23,[526] requires the worker habitually works in the UK, or was engaged there. Both EU Regulations emphasise that the rules should be applied with the purpose of protecting the worker.[527]
As well as having legal protection for workers rights, an objective of trade unions has been to organise their members across borders in the same way that multinational corporations have organised their production globally. In order to meet the balance of power that comes from ability of businesses to dismiss workers or relocate, unions have sought to take collective action and strike internationally. However, this kind of coordination was halted in the European Union in two decisions. In Laval Ltd v Swedish Builders Union[528] a group of Latvian workers were sent to a construction site in Sweden on low pay. The local Swedish Union took industrial action to make Laval Ltd sign up to the local collective agreement. Under the Posted Workers Directive, article 3 lays down minimum standards for workers being posted away from home so that workers always receive at least the minimum rights that they would have at home in case their place of work has lower minimum rights. Article 3(7) goes on to say that this "shall not prevent application of terms and conditions of employment which are more favourable to workers". Most people thought this meant that more favourable conditions could be given than the minimum (e.g. in Latvian law) by the host state's legislation or a collective agreement. However, in an interpretation seen as astonishing by many, the ECJ said that only the posting state could raise standards beyond its minimum for posted workers, and any attempt by the host state, or a collective agreement (unless the collective agreement is declared universal under article 3(8)) would be an infringement of the business' freedom to provide services under TFEU article 56. This decision was implicitly reversed by the European Union legislature in the Rome I Regulation, which makes clear in recital 34 that the host state may allow more favourable standards. However, in The Rosella, the ECJ also held that a blockade by the International Transport Workers Federation against a business that was using an Estonian flag of convenience (i.e. saying it was operating under Estonian law to avoid labour standards of Finland) infringed the business' right of free establishment under TFEU article 49. The ECJ said that it recognised the workers' "right to strike" in accordance with ILO Convention 87, but said that its use must be proportionately to the right of the business' establishment. The result is that the European Court of Justice's recent decisions create a significant imbalance between the international freedom of business, and that of labour, to bargain and take action to defend their interests. For this reason it has been questioned whether the ECJ's decisions were compatible with fundamental human rights, particularly the freedom of association guaranteed by article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
See also[edit]
A Manifesto for Labour Law
European labour law
US labor law
Social law
Notes[edit]
Jump up ^ See Office for National Statistics, 'Statistical Bulletin: Labour Market Statistics' (September 2012) 1.
Jump up ^ Northern Ireland has specific legislation and is excluded from two primary statutes, the ERA 1996 s 244 and Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s 301, but has mostly analogous provisions and falls under most of the other Acts and Regulations.
Jump up ^ See KW Wedderburn, The Worker and the Law (3rd edn Harmondsworth 1986) 6, referring to a "floor of rights", and Gisda Cyf v Barratt [2010] UKSC 41, [37]
Jump up ^ https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage-rates
Jump up ^ See the Education Reform Act 1988 s 124A and Sch 7A, para 3
Jump up ^ See the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004
Jump up ^ See the Companies Act 2006 ss 110 ff
Jump up ^ Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, Fixed-Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 and Agency Workers Regulations 2010
Jump up ^ ERA 1996 ss 86, 94 and 135. The qualification period is one month two have one week's notice, and after two years, employees must have at least two weeks' notice, a fair reason and redundancy pay. The minimum level of notice and redundancy pay increases each year of employment.
Jump up ^ See Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41, [35]
Jump up ^ (1772) 20 State Tr 1
Jump up ^ However, it was not until the Criminal Justice Act 1948 that penal servitude, forced labour for prisoners, was abolished.
Jump up ^ See Henry James Sumner Maine, Ancient Law (1861)
Jump up ^ See also, the Royal Commission on Trade Unions (1867) Cmnd ???; Employers and Workmen Act 1875.
Jump up ^ [1892] AC 25
Jump up ^ [1901] AC 426
Jump up ^ See JM Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919)
Jump up ^ Versailles Treaty, Part XIII
Jump up ^ Versailles Treaty 1919, Part XIII and Art 427
Jump up ^ The Whitley Report was published by the Ministry of Reconstruction, see Committee on Relations between Employers and Employed, Final Report (1918) Cmnd 9153; see also, Whitley Committee, Interim Report on Joint Standing Industrial Councils (1917) Cmnd 8606
Jump up ^ See KD Ewing, 'The State and Industrial Relations: 'Collective Laissez-Faire' Revisited' (1998) 5 Historical Studies in Industrial Relations 1.
Jump up ^ S Webb and B Webb, Industrial Democracy (Longmans 1902)
Jump up ^ See Constantine v Imperial Hotels Ltd [1944] KB 693.
Jump up ^ See Nairn v The University Court of the University of St Andrews (1907) 15 SLT 471, 473, per Lord McLaren, it was "a principle of the unwritten constitutional law of this country that men only were entitled to take part in the election of representatives to Parliament."
Jump up ^ See the Race Relations Act 1965, RRA 1968 and RRA 1976; Charter v Race Relations Board [1973] AC 868, 889, Lord Morris says "a new guiding principle of fundamental and far-reaching importance... In the terms decreed by Parliament, but subject to the exceptions permitted by Parliament, discrimination against a person of colour, race or ethnic or national origins has become unlawful by the law of England."
Jump up ^ See the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003, Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 and the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006.
Jump up ^ With the notable exception of the leading case, Defrenne v Sabena (No 2) [1976] ECR 455 (C-43/75)
Jump up ^ See also Redundancy Payments Act 1965 and the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.
Jump up ^ Alan Bullock, Report of the committee of inquiry on industrial democracy (1977) Cmnd 6706
Jump up ^ Employment Act 1980 (trade union right to government funds for ballots, narrowed picketting immunity, reduced secondary action immunity, unions right to expel members limited), Employment Act 1982 (narrowed "trade dispute" definition), Trade Union Act 1984 (secret ballots for union elections and strikes), Public Order Act 1986 (set out offences related to picketing, and increased police power over groups of over 20 people), Wages Act 1986 (deregulated restrictions on employers fining and deducting money from employees' pay, removed statutory holiday entitlement, reduced state funding for redundancies), Employment Act 1988 (worker's right to not join a union, trade union member's right to challenge strike ballots), Employment Act 1989 (restricted trade union officials' time off for duties, abolished the Training Commission, abolished government support for redundancy payments), Employment Act 1990 (removing closed shop and secondary action protection), Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (consolidated legislation hitherto), Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993 (trade union duty to inform employers of upcoming strikes)
Jump up ^ Gisda Cyf v Barratt [2010] UKSC 41
Jump up ^ Gisda Cyf v Barratt [2010] UKSC 41
Jump up ^ https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage-rates
Jump up ^ NMWA 1998 s 54; WTR 1998 rr 13-14; PA 2008 s 3; Equality Act 2010
Jump up ^ HSAWA 1975 s 2; ERA 1996 ss 1, 71-80I, 86, 94 and 135; SSCBA 1992 ss 1-2
Jump up ^ See particularly ERA 1996 s 230
Jump up ^ Malik v BCCI SA
Jump up ^ Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden-Württemberg (1986) Case 66/85, [1986] ECR 2121; Steymann v Staatssecretaris van Justitie (1988) Case 196/87, [1988] ECR 6159; Pfeiffer v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz eV (2005) C-397/01, [2005] IRLR 137
Jump up ^ See S Webb and B Webb, Industrial Democracy (1897) and O Kahn-Freund, Labour and the Law (Hamlyn Lectures 1972)
Jump up ^ ERA 1999 s 23
Jump up ^ Yewens v Noakes (1880) 6 QBD 530; R v Negus (1873) LR 2 CP 34
Jump up ^ See National Insurance Act 1946 s 1(2)
Jump up ^ Cassidy v Minister of Health [1951] 2 KB 343, Stevenson, Jordan & Harrison v MacDonald & Evans [1952] 1 TLR 101, Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart NV v Slatford [1953] 1 QB 248, 295, Denning LJ, ‘It depends on whether the person is part and parcel of the organisation.’
Jump up ^ Montreal v Montreal Locomotive Works [1947] 1 DLR 161, 169, per Lord Wright, and Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister for Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497, 515, per MacKenna J
Jump up ^ Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41, [19] approving Nethermere and [37], quoting para [38] of Foxwell J, referring to "mutual obligations, namely the provision of work in return for money..."
Jump up ^ Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd v Gardiner [1984] IRLR 240, Dacas v Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 217
Jump up ^ O’Kelly v Trusthouse Forte plc [1983] ICR 730, [1983] IRLR 369 and James v Greenwich LBC. This appeared to misinterpret M Freedland, The Contract of Employment (1976) 21-22, first in Airfix Footwear Ltd v Cope [1978] ICR 1210
Jump up ^ Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41, [17] approving Nethermere and [37] endorsing the consideration view.
Jump up ^ Following Johnson v Unisys Ltd [2001] IRLR 279, [20] Lord Steyn, ‘It is no longer right to equate a contract of employment with commercial contracts. One possible way of describing a contract of employment in modern terms is as a relational contract.’
Jump up ^ [2011] UKSC 41, [35]
Jump up ^ cf Massey v Crown Life Insurance Company [1977] EWCA Civ 12
Jump up ^ Clyde & Co LLP v Bates van Winkelhof [2014] UKSC 32
Jump up ^ [2010] UKSC 41, [39]
Jump up ^ ERA 1996 s 1
Jump up ^ e.g. French v Barclays Bank plc [1998] IRLR 646
Jump up ^ Harlow v Artemis International Corp Ltd [2008] EWHC 1126 (QB), [2008] IRLR 629
Jump up ^ Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s 179
Jump up ^ Contrast Alexander and Wall v Standard Telephones & Cables Ltd (No 2) [1991] IRLR 287 and Kaur v MG Rover Group Ltd [2004] EWCA 1507
Jump up ^ See Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd [2009] UKPC 10
Jump up ^ Wilsons and Clyde Coal Ltd v English [1938] AC 57 and Johnstone v Bloomsbury Health Authority [1991] 2 All ER 293
Jump up ^ Devonald v Rosser & Sons [1906] 2 KB 728
Jump up ^ Scally v Southern Health and Social Services Board [1992] 1 AC 294
Jump up ^ Crossley v Faithful & Gould Holdings Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 293
Jump up ^ Wilson v Racher [1974] ICR 428
Jump up ^ The Post Office v Roberts [1980] IRLR 347
Jump up ^ Transco plc v O’Brien [2002] EWCA Civ 379
Jump up ^ Mahmud and Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA [1998] AC 20
Jump up ^ Mallone v BPB Industries plc [2002] EWCA Civ 126
Jump up ^ Contrast Lord Steyn in Mahmud and Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA [1998] AC 20 and Lord Browne-Wilkinson VC in Johnstone v Bloomsbury Health Authority [1991] 2 All ER 293
Jump up ^ e.g. Cresswell v Board of Inland Revenue [1984] ICR 508
Jump up ^ Rigby v Ferodo Ltd [1988] ICR 29
Jump up ^ Robertson v British Gas Corp [1983] ICR 351
Jump up ^ See Bateman v Asda Stores Ltd [2010] IRLR 370, per Silber J, but contrast Department for Transport v Sparks [2016] EWCA Civ 360 and Equitable Life Assurance Society v Hyman [2002] AC 408
Jump up ^ Wandsworth London Borough Council v D’Silva [1998] IRLR 193
Jump up ^ Factories Act 1961
Jump up ^ Health and Safety Directive 89/391/EEC
Jump up ^ Before this, the National Insurance Act 1911, Part I created an employer dependent system of health care, rather than a universal system.
Jump up ^ SSCBA 1992 ss 151-155
Jump up ^ See Franklin v South Eastern Railway (1858) 3 H&N 211 and Fatal Accidents Act 1976
Jump up ^ See Turberville v Stampe (1697) 91 ER 1072 and Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22, [2002] 1 AC 215
Jump up ^ See Morris v Ford Motor Co Ltd [1973] QB 792, 799 and Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd [1998] UKHL 17
Jump up ^ e.g. Priestly v Fowler (1837) 3 Mees & Wels 1
Jump up ^ [1938] AC 57
Jump up ^ e.g. Woodley v Metropolitan District Railway Co (1877) 2 Ex D 384, overturned in Smith v Baker [1891] AC 325 and Bowater v Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Rowley Regis [1944] KB 476
Jump up ^ [1965] AC 656
Jump up ^ See Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 s 1
Jump up ^ [2002] EWCA Civ 1821
Jump up ^ [2002] UKHL 22. See also McGhee v National Coal Board [1972] 3 All ER 1008
Jump up ^ [2006] UKHL 20
Jump up ^ [2011] EWHC 951 (QB)
Jump up ^ There are also proposals circulating moving towards setting principles resembling a "maximum wage", see Financial Services Authority pay code
Jump up ^ Following the Peasants' Revolt, the Statute of Labourers fixed wages for the benefit of employers and feudal landlords.
Jump up ^ ERA 1996 s 14
Jump up ^ Miles v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council [1987] UKHL 15, [1987] AC 539. See also, Wiluszynski v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [1989] ICR 439
Jump up ^ See also S Webb, ‘The Economic Theory of a Legal Minimum Wage’ (1912) 20(10) The Journal of Political Economy 973-998
Jump up ^ See Trade Union Reform and Employment Relations Act 1993
Jump up ^ e.g. DE Card and AB Krueger, Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage (1995) and S Machin and A Manning, ‘Minimum wages and economic outcomes in Europe’ (1997) 41 European Economic Review 733
Jump up ^ See Universal Declaration of Human Rights art 23(3), European Social Charter 1961 art 4, ILO Minimum Wage Fixing Convention, No 131 (1970), European Community Charter of Fundamental Social Rights 1989 art 5
Jump up ^ See NMWA 1998 s 54(3), ERA 1996 s 230 and James v Redcats (Brands) Ltd [2007] IRLR 296 (EAT). NMWA 1998 s 34 expressly including agency workers, though NMWR 1999 r 12, excludes au pairs and family members in family business and r 26 allows adults in the first 26 weeks of accredited training can be paid at a lower rate.
Jump up ^ [2000] QB 501
Jump up ^ Press Association, 'Minimum wage to rise by 15p' (7 April 2011) The Guardian
Jump up ^ SI 1999/584
Jump up ^ NMWR 1999 r 10
Jump up ^ See Scottbridge Construction Ltd v Wright [2002] ScotCS 285, but then NMWR 1999 r 15(1A) says that a worker given suitable sleeping facilities is not doing work when not awake for the purpose of working
Jump up ^ McCartney v Oversley House Management [2006] IRLR 514 (EAT)
Jump up ^ [2003] EWCA Civ 199, [2003] IRLR 469
Jump up ^ See NMWR 1999 rr 31 and 36 and Leisure Employment Services Ltd v HM Revenue & Customs [2007] EWCA Civ 92, [2007] ICR 1056. SI 2009/1902 r 5 removed an exception for tips paid through the payroll previously found in NMWR 1999 r 31.
Jump up ^ NMWA 1998 ss 17-18
Jump up ^ NMWA 1998 ss 10 and 23-25
Jump up ^ NMWA 1998 ss 14, 19 and 20. See also the Employment Act 2008
Jump up ^ NMWA 1998 ss 11 and 21
Jump up ^ [2011] UKSC 41
Jump up ^ See Devonald v Rosser & Sons [1906] 2 KB 728, Pulse Healthcare Ltd v Carewatch Care Services Ltd (2012) UKEAT/0123/12/BA and Borrer v Cardinal Security Ltd [2013] UKEAT 0416_12_1607. See also, E McGaughey, Are Zero Hours Contracts Lawful? (2014) SSRN
Jump up ^ 2003/88/EC, replacing 93/104/EC
Jump up ^ See Universal Declaration of Human Rights art 24, ‘Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.’ Also, ILO Holidays with Pay Convention (Revised), 1970 C132
Jump up ^ WTD 2003 art 7 and WTR 1998 rr 13-16. SI 2007/2079 r 2 updated the period to 28 days, expressed often as 5.6 weeks, if one takes "week" to mean a five-day working week.
Jump up ^ See R (BECTU) v DTI (2001) C-173/99, [2001] 3 CMLR 7, ruling that the UK's initial 13 week qualifying period was 'manifestly incompatible' with the Directive.
Jump up ^ Accordingly the WTD 2003 was passed under the authority of TFEU art 153(1)(a)
Jump up ^ See Caulfield v Marshalls Clay Products (2006) C-131/04, [2006] IRLR 386. It is also the case that a worker who is off work for a long term illness is still entitled to holiday pay, Stringer v HMRC and Schultz-Hoff v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund [2009] UKHL 31, [2009] IRLR 214, also, C-520/06 and C-350/06
Jump up ^ WTD 2003 arts 8-13 and WTR 1998 rr 2-7
Jump up ^ Commission v United Kingdom (2006) C-484/04, [2006] IRLR 888 held the employer is under an obligation to ensure the breaks are actually observed.
Jump up ^ (2005) C-397/01, [2005] IRLR 137, referring to workers being the "weaker party" to a contract.
Jump up ^ WTD 2003 art 22, WTR 1998 rr 4-5
Jump up ^ See Fuß v Stadt Halle [2010] IRLR 1080, reducing pay after requesting to move to reduced hours is victimisation.
Jump up ^ WTR 1998 r 4(3)(b)
Jump up ^ See SIMAP v Conselleria de Sanidad y Consumo de la Generalidad Valenciana (2000) C-303/98, [2000] ECR I-7963
Jump up ^ (2003) C-151/02, [2003] ECR I-08389
Jump up ^ Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 s 167
Jump up ^ The right was secured in collective agreements, and then put into legislation for the first time by the Employment Protection Act 1975 ss 34-52. Better rights only came after 1999.
Jump up ^ cf ACL Davies, Perspectives on Labour Law (2004) 111, minimal paternity leave has the ‘unfortunate side-effect of stereotyping women and perpetuating the view that childcare is their responsibility alone’.
Jump up ^ 92/85/EEC
Jump up ^ MPLR 1999 (SI 1999/3312) reg 8
Jump up ^ Boyle v Equal Opportunities Commission (1998) C-411/96, [1998] ECR I-6401, requires this to be at least the same level as statutory sick pay.
Jump up ^ Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 s 167
Jump up ^ ERA 1996 ss 72-73 and MPLR 1999 regs 7-8
Jump up ^ Work and Families Act 2006 (c 18) abolished the qualification period for ordinary and additional maternity leave.
Jump up ^ MPLR 1999 regs 17-20
Jump up ^ ERA 1996 ss 75A-D and PALR 2002 regs 15-20
Jump up ^ PALR 2002 SI 2002/2788 reg 6. ERA 1996 ss 80A-E. See also Statutory Paternity Pay and Statutory Adoption Pay (General) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/2822)
Jump up ^ Following the Parental Leave Directive 2010/18/EU, replacing 96/34/EC
Jump up ^ ERA 1996 ss 76-80 and MPLR 1999 regs 13-15
Jump up ^ MPLR 1999 reg 16 and Sch 2
Jump up ^ MPLR 1999 reg 17-20
Jump up ^ APLR 2010 (SI 2010/1055)
Jump up ^ See 'Gender Equality in Sweden' on sweden.se
Jump up ^ [2003] IRLR 184 (EAT)
Jump up ^ ERA 1996 s 80H
Jump up ^ [2006] IRLR 171 (EAT)
Jump up ^ See Flexible Working (Eligibility, Complaints and Remedies) Regulations 2002 r 7 (SI 2002/3236)
Jump up ^ Inserted by the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 s 40
Jump up ^ See Pension Schemes Act 1993 s 1 and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992
Jump up ^ Pensions Act 2008 ss 1, 13 and 88(3)
Jump up ^ PA 2008 ss 3 and 16
Jump up ^ See PA 2008 Sch 1
Jump up ^ See I Adams, ‘Fewer than half of Britons save for pension, says survey’ (3 April 2010) The Guardian, 35
Jump up ^ See further D Hayton, ‘Pension Trusts and Traditional Trusts: Drastically Different Species of Trusts’ [2005] Conveyancer 229
Jump up ^ Imperial Group Pension Trust v Imperial Tobacco Ltd [1991] 1 WLR 589
Jump up ^ Scally v Southern Health and Social Services Board [1992] 1 AC 294
Jump up ^ Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v Weber von Hartz (1986) C-170/84, [1986] IRLR 317; Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group (1990) C-262/88, [1990] IRLR 240
Jump up ^ PA 2004 ss 241-242. Nomination can be through a direct vote or trade union appointment. These rules followed the Goode Report, Pension Law Reform (1993) Cm 2342
Jump up ^ PA 2004 s 243
Jump up ^ See Harries v The Church Commissioners for England [1992] 1 WLR 1241
Jump up ^ See Pensions Act 2008 and Pensions Act 2004 ss 241-243
Jump up ^ Goode Report, Pension Law Reform (1993) Cm 2342
Jump up ^ IA 1986 ss 175, 386 and Sch 6
Jump up ^ On the scope of regulation, see Houldsworth v Bridge Trustees Ltd [2011] UKSC 42
Jump up ^ Pensions Act 2004 ss 13-32
Jump up ^ Pensions Act 1995 s 33
Jump up ^ [2013] UKSC 52
Jump up ^ Pension Schemes Act 1993, s 163
Jump up ^ Pensions Act 2004 ss 173-174 and Sch 7
Jump up ^ The Representation of the People Act 1918 implemented universal suffrage, but only with the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928 did women have an equal voting age, and only with Representation of the People Act 1948 did voting become equal, regardless of university degree.
Jump up ^ See generally S Webb and B Webb, The History of Trade Unionism (1920)Appendix VIII
Jump up ^ cf Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s 1
Jump up ^ ERA 1996 ss 98 and 135
Jump up ^ Morgan v Fry [1968] 2 QB 710, per Lord Denning MR
Jump up ^ Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act 1875 and Trade Disputes Act 1906
Jump up ^ Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s 219
Jump up ^ See the ILO Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention (1948) No 87 and ILO Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 No 98
Jump up ^ See also Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 arts 20 and 23, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966 art 8 and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 art 22
Jump up ^ R v Journeymen-Taylors of Cambridge (1721) 8 Mod 10, 88 ER 9, Hilton v Eckersley (1855) 6 El & Bl 47 and Hornby v Close (1867) LR 2 QB 153. See further JV Orth, Combination and conspiracy: a legal history of trade unionism, 1721-1906 (1992)
Jump up ^ See S Webb and B Webb, Industrial Democracy (1920) chs 1 and 2
Jump up ^ Industrial Relations Act 1971 s 14 and Sch 4
Jump up ^ Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974
Jump up ^ KD Ewing and P Elias, Trade Union Democracy, Members’ Rights and the Law (Mansell 1987) ch 5, 139-151 and R Undy and R Martin, Ballots and Trade Union Democracy (1984) 58-59, finding 63 of 101 unions with direct elections, or 61% of total membership.
Jump up ^ Department of Employment, Democracy in Trade Unions (1983) Cm 8778, ch 2, 3
Jump up ^ Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 ss 47, 50-51
Jump up ^ For example, in 2007, 2010 and 2013 Jerry Hicks challenged the general secretary of Unite the Union, and only lost by small margins in the system of voting by postal ballots among members.
Jump up ^ Brown v Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers [1976] ICR 147
Jump up ^ Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 ss 55-56
Jump up ^ [1999] IRLR 166
Jump up ^ [1971] 2 QB 175
Jump up ^ See Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd [2009] UKPC 10, [16] per Lord Hoffmann and Equitable Life Assurance Society v Hyman [2000] UKHL 39
Jump up ^ [2001] IRLR 808
Jump up ^ TULRCA 1992 ss 10 and 12. It is doubtful that executives or employees are jointly liable without a specific assumption of responsibility: see Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd [1998] UKHL 17
Jump up ^ Bennett v National Amalgamated Society of Operative House and Ship Painters and Decorators (1916) 85 LJ Ch 298. Despite older authority in Cotter v National Union of Seamen [1929] 2 Ch 58, the act will still probably be valid vis-a-vis third parties, since the union is liable 'to the same extent and in the same manner as if it were a body corporate' under TULRCA 1992 s 12
Jump up ^ [1950] 2 All ER 1064
Jump up ^ cf Foss v Harbottle (1843) 67 ER 189, which suggests that if no express rule is broken (e.g. there is an allegation of mismanagement by union officials) there is a preference for exhausting a union's internal dispute or decision-making procedures before litigation.
Jump up ^ TULRCA 1992 ss 29-45A
Jump up ^ See Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants v Osborne [1910] AC 87 (political donations ultra vires), Trade Union Act 1913 reversed Osborne. Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1927 required union members opt into a political fund. Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1946 changed the default, so there was a right to opt out, then regulated further by the Trade Union Act 1984.
Jump up ^ For this regulation, see Companies Act 2006 ss 366-368 and 378 which requires a shareholder resolution, itemising the money to be donated for any political contributions over £5000 in 12 months, lasting a maximum of four years. In practice the board of directors controls this process. Most shareholder votes are controlled by wealthy individuals or asset managers.
Jump up ^ Paul v NALGO [1987] IRLR 413
Jump up ^ Certification Officer, Annual Report 2010-11 (2011)
Jump up ^ [1978] ICR 676
Jump up ^ [1974] ICR 625
Jump up ^ TUC, Disputes Principles and Procedures (2000)
Jump up ^ [2007] ECHR 184
Jump up ^ See also Cheall v APEX [1983] 2 AC 180, per Lord Diplock, ‘freedom of association can only be mutual; there can be no right of an individual to associate with other individuals who are not willing to associate with him.’
Jump up ^ TULRCA 1992 ss 62-65
Jump up ^ See Knowles v Fire Brigades Union [1997] ICR 595
Jump up ^ ILO Committee of Experts, ‘Individual Observation Concerning Convention 87’ (1989) ‘provisions which deprive trade unions of the capacity to give effect to their democratically determined rules are, prima facie, not in conformity with this right. [TULRCA 1992 ss 64-65 on the right ‘not to strike’] clearly has this effect, and on that basis is not in conformity with Article 3.’ It should ‘be possible to discipline members who refuse to participate in lawful strikes...’
Jump up ^ Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co Ltd v Veitch [1941] UKHL 2, [1942] AC 435
Jump up ^ ECHR article 11 and Demir and Baykara v Turkey [2008] ECHR 1345
Jump up ^ ILO Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention (1948) No 87 and ILO Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 C98
Jump up ^ See also Companies Act 2006 section 172.
Jump up ^ See KD Ewing, ‘The State and Industrial Relations: ‘Collective Laissez-Faire’ Revisited’ (1998) 5 Historical Studies in Industrial Relations 1
Jump up ^ TULRCA 1992 s 219 ff
Jump up ^ Introduced by the Employment Relations Act 1999
Jump up ^ TULRCA 1992, Sch A1, paras 6 and 7
Jump up ^ TULRCA 1992, Sch A1, para 35
Jump up ^ [2005] EWCA Civ 1309
Jump up ^ See the Central Arbitration Committee website
Jump up ^ TULRCA 1992, Sch A1, para 11-19
Jump up ^ TULRCA 1992, Sch A1, para 19B
Jump up ^ Fullarton Computer Industries Ltd v Central Arbitration Committee [2001] Scot CS 168
Jump up ^ [2002] EWCA Civ 512
Jump up ^ TULRCA 1992, Sch A1, para 22
Jump up ^ TULRCA 1992, Sch A1, para 22(4)
Jump up ^ TULRCA 1992, Sch A1, para 25 and 26
Jump up ^ TULRCA 1992, Sch A1, para 36
Jump up ^ TULRCA 1992, Sch A1, para 31-32
Jump up ^ See further Gallagher v Post Office [1970] 3 All ER 712 and New Century Cleaning Co Ltd v Church [2000] IRLR 27
Jump up ^ Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co Ltd v Veitch [1941] UKHL 2 and RMT v Serco; ASLEF v London & Birmingham Railway [2011] EWCA Civ 226
Jump up ^ Wilson and Palmer v United Kingdom [2002] ECHR 552 and Demir and Baykara v Turkey [2008] ECHR 1345
Jump up ^ e.g. Harrison v Kent County Council [1995] ICR 434 (EAT) per Mummery J, holding refusal of employment for someone having ostensibly ‘an uncooperative attitude and anti-management style’ was simply a code for union organising, and thus unlawful.
Jump up ^ [1992] ICR 221
Jump up ^ [2002] ECHR 552
Jump up ^ St Helen’s Borough Council v Derbyshire [2007] UKHL 16, but contrast Gayle v Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust [2011] EWCA Civ 924, where St Helen's was not cited to the Court. Mummery LJ, held a tribunal had not erred in finding that a worker given a final written warning which was not for the sole purpose of a penalty for trade union activities, was not a detriment under TULRCA 1992 s 146.
Jump up ^ Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010 (SI 2010/493)
Jump up ^ Chart from E McGaughey, 'All in 'It' Together: Worker Wages Without Worker Votes' (2016) 27(1) King's Law Journal 1, 8. N Brownlie, Trade Union Membership 2011 (DBIS 2012) 22-23 and T Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2014) Technical Appendices, Table S9.2
Jump up ^ Young, James and Webster v United Kingdom [1981] ECHR 4 and Employment Act 1990
Jump up ^ cf Pensions Act 2008 ss 3 and 8
Jump up ^ TULRCA 1992 s 168
Jump up ^ TULRCA 1992 s 170. This was held not to cover political protest activities, see Luce v Bexley LBC [1990] ICR 591 (EAT)
Jump up ^ Revised ACAS Code of Practice 3, Time off for trade union duties and activities (2010) acas.org.uk
Jump up ^ Young, James and Webster v United Kingdom [1981] ECHR 4
Jump up ^ See, for example, the Canadian case of Lavigne v Ontario Public Service Employees Union [1991] 2 SCR 211, but contrast TULRCA 1992 s 146(3)
Jump up ^ Pensions Act 2008 ss 3 and 8
Jump up ^ e.g. Certification of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa [1996] ZACC 26, [66], confirming the right to strike as more important than a right to lock-out.
Jump up ^ Morgan v Fry [1968] 2 QB 710, ‘It has been held for over 60 years that workmen have a right to strike...' per Lord Denning MR, referring to the Trade Disputes Act 1906, and Mogul Steamship Co Ltd v McGregor, Gow & Co [1892] AC 25, ‘I have always said that a combination of workmen, an agreement among them to cease work except for higher wages, and a strike in consequence, was lawful at common law; perhaps not enforceable inter se, but not indictable. The Legislature has now so declared.' Lord Bramwell referring to the Trade Union Act 1871
Jump up ^ B Gernigo, A Odero and H Guido, 'ILO Principles Concerning the Right to Strike' (1998) 137 International Labour Review 441
Jump up ^ RMT v UK [2014] ECHR 366
Jump up ^ Mogul Steamship Co Ltd v McGregor, Gow & Co [1892] AC 25, Lord Bramwell
Jump up ^ Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co Ltd v Veitch [1942] AC 435, 463
Jump up ^ Morgan v Fry [1968] 2 QB 710, 725, Lord Denning MR
Jump up ^ London Underground Ltd v RMT [1996] ICR 170
Jump up ^ cf P Elias, ‘The Strike and Breach of Contract: A Reassessment’ in KD Ewing, CA Gearty and BA Hepple, Human Rights and Labour Law (1994) ch 11
Jump up ^ See Taff Vale Rly Co v Amalgamated Society of Rly Servants [1901] UKHL 1, Quinn v Leathem [1901] UKHL 2 and South Wales Miners' Federation v Glamorgan Coal Co [1905] AC 239, reversed by the Trade Disputes Act 1906.
Jump up ^ e.g. Rookes v Barnard [1964] UKHL 1 and Metrobus Ltd v Unite [2009] EWCA Civ 2009
Jump up ^ e.g. R v Mawbey (1796) 6 Term Rep 619, 101 ER 736, cf Timeplan Education Group Ltd v NUT [1997] IRLR 457
Jump up ^ Lumley v Gye (1853) 2 E&B 216
Jump up ^ Tarleton v McGawley (1793) 1 Peake 270, 170 ER 153
Jump up ^ This was introduced by the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875 and repeated in the Trade Disputes Act 1906
Jump up ^ Tony Blair, ‘We won’t look back to the 1970s’ (31 March 1997) The Times, ‘The essential elements of the trade union legislation of the 1980s will remain. There will be no return to secondary action, flying pickets, strikes without ballots, the closed shop and all the rest. The changes that we do propose would leave British law the most restrictive on trade unions in the Western world. The scenes from Wapping, Grunwick or the miners’ strike could no more happen under our proposals than under the existing laws.’
Jump up ^ See A Manifesto for Labour Law: towards a comprehensive revision of workers’ rights (Institute of Employment Rights, 2016) 1 and 70, reviewed in (2017) 46(1) Industrial Law Journal 169.
Jump up ^ [1977] ICR 686
Jump up ^ Express Newspapers Ltd v Keys [1980] IRLR 247
Jump up ^ Mercury Communications Ltd v Scott-Garner [1984] ICR 74
Jump up ^ University College London Hospitals NHS Trust v Unison [1999] ICR 204, surviving an ECHR article 11 challenge in Unison v United Kingdom [2002] IRLR 497
Jump up ^ In re P (a minor) [2003] UKHL 8, [4]
Jump up ^ TULRCA 1992 s 224(2)
Jump up ^ Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1927, after in National Sailors’ and Firemen’s Union v Reed [1926] Ch 536, Astbury J declared that secondary action was unlawful in the General Strike.
Jump up ^ Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1946 until, following Express Newspapers ltd v MacShane [1980] ICR 42 and the Employment Act 1980. It was then said in Department of Employment, Trade Union Immunities (1981) Cm 8128, para 149, that a total ban ‘could tilt the balance of power unacceptably to the benefit of employers’. The present provisions were enacted in the Employment Act 1990
Jump up ^ RMT v United Kingdom [2014] ECHR 366, rejected an express challenge to the validity of the legislation under ECHR article 11, albeit without discussion of the inequality of bargaining power that is inherent when employees exercise freedom of association, including who the employer purports to make the contract with. cf Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan, 2015 SCC 4
Jump up ^ See further J Prassl, The Concept of the Employer (2015) and cf Duport Steel Ltd v Sirs [1980] ICR 161
Jump up ^ Police Act 1996 s 91
Jump up ^ Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 ss 127-8. Anomalously, the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 s 59 grants a further exception. See further POA v United Kingdom [2013] ECHR 600 and Hrvatski Liječnički sindikat v Croatia [2014] ECHR 1417
Jump up ^ ILO Convention No 87, art 6. Civil Contingencies Act 2004 s 23(3)(b) requires that emergency powers cannot limit the right to strike.
Jump up ^ Lord Donovan, Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers’ Associations (1968) Cmnd 3623 rejected a need for ballots, but Department of Employment, Democracy in Trade Unions (1983) Cm 8778 led to their introduction in the Trade Union Act 1984
Jump up ^ TULRCA 1992 s 226A
Jump up ^ TULRCA 1992 s 226B-232B
Jump up ^ TULRCA 1992 s 231-234A
Jump up ^ Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v NURMT [2010] EWHC 1084 (QB), EDF Energy Powerlink Ltd v NURMT [2009] EWHC 2852 QB, British Airways Plc v Unite the Union [2009] EWHC 3541
Jump up ^ [2010] EWCA Civ 669
Jump up ^ [2011] EWCA Civ 226
Jump up ^ See RMT v Serco Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 226, [9] per Elias LJ
Jump up ^ See generally H Collins, KD Ewing and A McColgan, Labour Law (2012) ch 15, 593-655
Jump up ^ Contrast the status quo bias explained in D Kahneman, JL Knetsch and RH Thaler, ‘Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias’ (1991) 5(1) Journal of Economic Perspectives 193, 198 and discussed in E McGaughey, 'Behavioural Economics and Labour Law' (2015) LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Papers 20/2014, 20-24
Jump up ^ cf R (BTP Tioxide) v Central Arbitration Committee [1981] ICR 843, Forbes J holding an employer did not need to disclose ‘the break point between grades, job descriptions and points allocated to job on the basis of the factors used’ because the union had not made clear how this was going to be used for collective bargaining under the former EPA 1975 ss 17 and 19
Jump up ^ Companies Act 2006, ss 172(1)(b)-(c) and 417(2), which states this information's purpose is "to inform members of the company and help them assess how the directors have performed their duty under section 172 (duty to promote the success of the company)." Any party registered as a company member can enforce this duty.
Jump up ^ See Trade Boards Act 1918, following the Reconstruction Committee, Sub-Committee on Relations between Employers and Employed: Interim report on joint standing industrial councils (1917) Cd 8606. Explored in KD Ewing, 'The State and Industrial Relations: 'Collective Laissez-Faire' Revisited' (1998) 5 Historical Studies in Industrial Relations 1.
Jump up ^ Following the Community Charter on the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers 1989 arts 17 and 18
Jump up ^ Association de médiation sociale v Union locale des syndicats CGT (2014) C‑176/12, [2014] IRLR 310
Jump up ^ See Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 SI 1977/500. The Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/1513) provides for when there is no union, passed under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 s 2 and the Health and Safety Directive 89/391/EC art 11
Jump up ^ Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004 regs 2-4 Archived January 9, 2010, at the Wayback Machine. and Information and Consultation of Employees Directive 2002/14/EC.
Jump up ^ Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 1999 Sch, para 7 and EWCD 2009 Annex para 2
Jump up ^ ICER 2004 (SI 3426/2004 Archived January 9, 2010, at the Wayback Machine.), implementing Information and Consultation of Employees Directive 2002/14/EC
Jump up ^ ICER 2004 regs 2-4 and 20. ICED 2002 arts 2 and 3. The UK could have chosen to reduce the threshold. Under reg 2, an "undertaking" refers to ‘public or private undertaking carrying out an economic activity, whether or not operating for gain’. Under reg 4(2)(b) it is suggested that part-time staff, working under 75 hours a month, only count for half a person, but ‘there is no provision for it in the Directive’ and ‘it appears to cut across... the Part-Time Workers Directive’, Collins, Ewing and McColgan (2012) 626
Jump up ^ ICER 2004 reg 19 and ICED 2002 art 4(2)
Jump up ^ ICER 2004 regs 14-20 and Sch 2 and ICED 2002 arts 4-5. Theoretically, employees can agree to lower standards, but will rarely have an incentive to do so.
Jump up ^ ICED 2002 art 4(4)(e)
Jump up ^ Junk v Kühnel (2005) C-188/03, [43] the Collective Redundancies Directive 1998 ‘imposes an obligation to negotiate’.
Jump up ^ cf in US labor law, National Labor Relations Act 1935 §8(d) duty to ‘meet at reasonable times, and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment’. NLRB v Borg-Warner Corp, 356 U.S. 342 (1958) at 349, ‘The duty is limited to those subjects and within that area neither party is legally obligated to yield… As to other matters, however, each party is free to bargain or not to bargain, and to agree or not to agree.’
Jump up ^ ICER 2004 reg 7
Jump up ^ ICER 2004 reg 8, with reg 8(6) adding that turnout must be high enough so that 40 per cent of total staff favour a new procedure.
Jump up ^ [2006] IRLR 592, [2006] ICR 1253 (EAT)
Jump up ^ ICER 2004 reg 23
Jump up ^ cf ICED 2002 arts 7-8 and CFREU art 47
Jump up ^ Collins, Ewing and McColgan (2012) 605
Jump up ^ EWCD 2009 Annex para 2 and TICER 1999 Sch, para 7
Jump up ^ TICER 1999 reg 3 and EWCD 2009 art 3
Jump up ^ TICER 1999 reg 9 and EWCD 2009 art 5
Jump up ^ TICER 1999 reg 18 and Sch 2. EWCD 2009 Annex
Jump up ^ eg S Laulom, 'The Flawed Revision of the European Works Council Directive (2010) 39(2) Industrial Law Journal 202
Jump up ^ Junk v Kühnel (2005) C-188/03, [43] the Collective Redundancies Directive 1998 ‘imposes an obligation to negotiate’.
Jump up ^ TULRCA 1992 s 188 and CRD 98/59/EC art 2
Jump up ^ TULRCA 1992 s 188, implementing Collective Redundancies Directive 98/59/EC. For over 100 redundancies, the time is 45 days, reduced from 90 days by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (Amendment) Order 2013/763 art 3.
Jump up ^ TULRCA 1992 s 195
Jump up ^ [2015] UKSC 26
Jump up ^ (2015) C-182/13, [52]
Jump up ^ [1984] IRLR 135 (EAT)
Jump up ^ TULRCA 1992 s 188(1) and CRD 1998 art 2(1)
Jump up ^ (2009) C-44/08, [48]
Jump up ^ (2009) C-44/08, [63]-[65]
Jump up ^ TULRCA 1992 s 188(1B)-188A
Jump up ^ e.g. Clark’s of Hove v Baker’s Union [1978] ICR 1076
Jump up ^ Junk v Kühnel (2005) C-188/03, [41]-[43] "the directive imposes an obligation to negotiate".
Jump up ^ TULRCA 1992 ss 189-196
Jump up ^ Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 regs 13-15 and Transfer of Undertakings Directive 2001/23/EC arts 6-7. For curious case, of doubtful compatibility with EU law, allowing an employer to escape consulting see Royal Mail Group Ltd v CWU [2009] EWCA Civ 1045
Jump up ^ See E McGaughey, ‘Votes at Work in Britain: Shareholder Monopolisation and the ‘Single Channel’ (2016) ssrn.com
Jump up ^ See the Oxford University Act 1854 ss 16 and 21, Cambridge University Act 1856 ss 5 and 12. Also the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, ss 20(2) and 85, and Sch 4, para 4.
Jump up ^ See also the South Metropolitan Gas Act 1896 s 19, Port of London Act 1908 s 1(7), Iron and Steel Act 1967, Sch 4, Part V, Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 s 2(8), Post Office Act 1977 s 1
Jump up ^ See M Weiss (ed) et al., Handbook on employee involvement in Europe (Kluwer 2004). For the most developed example, see in German labour law the Mitbestimmungsgesetz 1976 and the Betriebsverfassungsgesetz 1972 §87. Member states with no participation rights are Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and the United Kingdom.
Jump up ^ See Employee Involvement Directive 2001/86/EC
Jump up ^ See generally, PL Davies, 'Workers on the Board of the European Company?' (2003) 32(2) Industrial Law Journal 75
Jump up ^ Oxford University Act 1854 ss 16 and 21
Jump up ^ Cambridge University Act 1856 ss 5 and 12; cf King's College London Act 1997 s 15, though since amended.
Jump up ^ (1977) Cmnd 6706; see also Lord Donovan, Report of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers’ Associations (1965–1968) Cmnd 3623, §§997-1006, where the minority favoured worker directors in principle.
Jump up ^ See KW Wedderburn, 'Employees, Partnership and Company Law' [2002] 31(2) Industrial Law Journal 99, a minor duty that could not be legally enforced was Companies Act 1985, section 309, requiring directors to act in shareholders and employees' interests, now reflected in Companies Act 2006, s 172
Jump up ^ Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 s 31, and PJ Purcell, ‘The Enron Bankruptcy and Employer Stock in Retirement Plans’ (11 March 2002) CRS Report for Congress
Jump up ^ Constantine v Imperial Hotels Ltd [1944] KB 693
Jump up ^ Mangold v Helm (2005) C-144/04
Jump up ^ See Race Equality Directive 2000/48/EC, for race; Employment Equality Framework Directive 2000/78/EC, for religion, belief, sexuality, disability and age; Equal Treatment Directive 2006/54/EC, for gender.
Jump up ^ TULRCA 1992 ss 146-166; ECHR art 11 and Wilson v United Kingdom [2002] ECHR 552
Jump up ^ EA 2010 ss 4-14, 16, 18
Jump up ^ PTWR 2000, FTER 2002, AWR 2010
Jump up ^ Contrast the unfair dismissal rules, which set out the legitimate grounds for dismissal, and the European Convention art 13, which catches 'any other status'
Jump up ^ e.g. Transco plc v O’Brien [2002] EWCA Civ 379, cf Mandla v Dowell Lee [1983] QB 1, per Lord Denning MR (overturned on appeal).
Jump up ^ The exception is that direct age discrimination may always be objectively justified, as with discrimination against part-time, fixed term or agency workers.
Jump up ^ EA 2010 s 13
Jump up ^ See James v Eastleigh BC [1990] 2 AC 751
Jump up ^ R (European Roma Rights Centre) v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport [2005] 2 WLR 1
Jump up ^ [2003] UKHL 11, [2003] ICR 337
Jump up ^ See also, Ladele v London Borough of Islington [2009] EWCA Civ 1357, [39]
Jump up ^ Equal Treatment Directive 2000/78/EC art 10; Igen Ltd v Wong [2005] ICR 931; Madarassy v Nomura International Plc [2007] EWCA Civ 33, [2007] ICR 867
Jump up ^ (2008) C-303/06, [2008] IRLR 722
Jump up ^ [2008] EWCA Civ 1421
Jump up ^ See Showboat Entertainment Centre v Owens [1984] ICR 65, (EAT)
Jump up ^ EA 2010 s 19
Jump up ^ Ladele v Islington BC [2009] EWCA Civ 1357, [60], per Lord Neuberger MR
Jump up ^ Eweida v British Airways plc [2010] EWCA Civ 80, [37], per Sedley LJ.
Jump up ^ (1986) C-170/84, [1986] ECR 1607
Jump up ^ (1999) C-167/97, [2000] UKHL 12
Jump up ^ 2006/54/EC
Jump up ^ EA 2010 ss 70-71 exclude the application of ss 39, 49-50, but not for direct discrimination in ss 13-14
Jump up ^ See now the Equal Pay Directive 2006/54/EC. In the US, the Equal Pay Act 1963 preceded the Civil Rights Act 1964 by amending the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
Jump up ^ See Rinner-Kühn v FWW Spezial-Gebaudereinigung GmbH & Co KG [1989] ECR 2743 (C-171/88)
Jump up ^ See Defrenne v Sabena (No 2) [1976] ECR 455 (C-43/75)
Jump up ^ See further S Deakin and G Morris, Labour Law (6th edn 2012) 696-7
Jump up ^ cf Burton v De Vere Hotels Ltd [1997] ICR 1, which is now effectively overturned by EA 2010 s 40(2) and (3)
Jump up ^ [2006] UKHL 34, [2006] ICR 1199
Jump up ^ [2007] UKHL 16, [2007] ICR 841
Jump up ^ [2001] ICR 1065
Jump up ^ See also, Equality Framework Directive 2000/78/EC art 4
Jump up ^ [1989] IRLR 150
Jump up ^ (2010) C-229/08
Jump up ^ Contrast the stricter approach to policing, Johnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (1986) C-222/84, [1986] 5 ECR 1651
Jump up ^ (1999) C-273/97, [1999] ECR I-7403
Jump up ^ Contrast the ECJ's rejection of the complete ban on non-interoperable forces in Kreil v Germany (2000) C-285/98, [2000] ECR I-0069
Jump up ^ R (Amicus) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2004] EWHC 860 (Admin), [2004] IRLR 430
Jump up ^ cf Griggs v Duke Power Co, 401 US 424 (1971) which was the founding case under the US Civil Rights Act 1964.
Jump up ^ Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v Weber von Hartz (1984) C-170/84, [1986] ECR 1607, concerning a part-time worker who was refused an occupational pension.
Jump up ^ Rinner-Kühn v FWW Spezial-Gebaudereinigung GmbH & Co KG (1989) C-171/88, [1989] ECR 2743, concerning a part-time worker who did not get sick pay. Nimz v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg (1991) C-184/89, [1991] ECR I-297, concerning a women part-time worker who was paid less than full-time staff. Cf Handels-og Kontorfunktionaerernes Forbund I Danmark v Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, acting on behalf of Danfoss (1989) C-109/88, [1989] ECR 3199, where criteria of being adaptable, prior training and seniority in practice meant that women were being paid less. Seniority was explicitly approved as a good reason.
Jump up ^ Kutz-Bauer v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg (2003) C-187/00, [2003] ECR I-02741, involving a German law subsidising employment for men up to 65, and women only up to 60. Cf Allonby v Accrington and Rossendale College (2001) C-256/01, [2001] ICR 1189.
Jump up ^ [1978] 1 WLR 1429, [1978] IRLR 361
Jump up ^ [1987] IRLR 26
Jump up ^ cf Allonby
Jump up ^ (1992) C-127/92
Jump up ^ [1998] 1 WLR 259
Jump up ^ Redcar and Cleveland BC v Bainbridge [2007] EWCA Civ 929, [2008] ICR 238
Jump up ^ Allen v GMB [2008] EWCA Civ 810, [2008] IRLR 690
Jump up ^ R (Carson and Reynolds) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2005] UKHL 37, holding that the UK government could give less money in income support and jobseekers allowance for under 25s than over 25s. This may be of questionable compatibility with Kutz-Bauer and Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co KG (2010) C-555/07, [2010] IRLR 346.
Jump up ^ Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA (2007) C-411/05, [2007] IRLR 989 and R (Age Concern (England)) v Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (2009) C-388/07, [2009] IRLR 373
Jump up ^ (2006) C-13/05, [2006] IRLR 706
Jump up ^ Equality Act 2010 (Disability) Regulations 2010 regs 3-8 list various exclusions, such as nicotine or alcohol addiction, or a propensity to start fires.
Jump up ^ [2004] UKHL 32
Jump up ^ [2007] EWCA Civ 283
Jump up ^ See United Steelworkers of America v Weber, 443 US 193 (1979) and the SA Employment Equity Act 1998 s 15 and Sch 4, for large employers.
Jump up ^ cf Kalanke v Freie Hansestadt Bremen (1995) C-450/93, [1995] IRLR 660, said in Marschall to have been a case where the employer failed to pay regard to individual qualities, by having an automatic promotion policy for women if equally qualified with male competitors.
Jump up ^ (1996) C-409/95, [1996] ICR 45
Jump up ^ (2000) C-407/98, [2000] ECR I-05539
Jump up ^ (2000) C-158/97, [2001] 2 CMLR 6
Jump up ^ Part-time Work Directive 97/81/EC, Fixed-Term Work Directive 99/70/EC, and the Temporary and Agency Work Directive 2008/104/EC
Jump up ^ SI 2000/1551
Jump up ^ [2006] UKHL 8
Jump up ^ [2013] UKSC 6
Jump up ^ See A McColgan, ‘Missing The Point?’ (2000) 29 ILJ 260, 267
Jump up ^ G Standing, The Precariat – The new dangerous class (2011)
Jump up ^ SI 2002/2034
Jump up ^ See A McColgan, 'The Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002: Fiddling While Rome Burns?' [2003] 32 ILJ 194
Jump up ^ Mangold v Helm (2005) C-144/04
Jump up ^ FTER 2002 regs 3-5
Jump up ^ See Adeneler v Ellinikos Organismos Galaktos (2006) C-212/04, [2006] IRLR 716, Grand Chamber holding objective justification for use of fixed-term contracts mean showing a genuine need, and measures employed are proportionate to that aim. Twenty days was too little to break continuity.
Jump up ^ See ERA 1996 s 235 and Ford v Warwickshire CC [1983] ICR 273
Jump up ^ e.g. Transco plc v O’Brien [2002] EWCA Civ 379
Jump up ^ See E McGaughey, 'Should Agency Workers be Treated Differently?' (2010) LSE Legal Studies Working Paper No. 7/2010 and N Countouris, 'The Temporary Agency Work Directive: Another Broken Promise?' [2009] 38(3) ILJ 329
Jump up ^ [2011] UKSC 41
Jump up ^ cf Dacas v Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 21 and James v Greenwich LBC [2008] EWCA Civ 35
Jump up ^ SI 2003/3319
Jump up ^ See H Collins, 'Market Power, Bureaucratic Power, and the Contract of Employment' (1986) 15 Industrial Law Journal 1
Jump up ^ ILO Termination of Employment Convention, 1982 C 158 requires a "valid reason" for terminations, with "reasonable notice" and "severance pay", and the termination must be able to be appealed to an impartial authority. Virtually every developed country, except the United States, goes far beyond this low standard.
Jump up ^ Employment Rights Act 1996 s 86
Jump up ^ ERA 1996 s 94
Jump up ^ ERA 1996 s 135.
Jump up ^ See the Collective Redundancies Directive 98/59/EC and TULRCA 1992 ss 188-192
Jump up ^ Gisda Cyf v Barratt [2010] UKSC 41. See also Locke v Candy & Candy Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 1350 and McClelland v Northern Ireland General Health Services [1957] 1 WLR 594, where the House of Lords by 3 to 2 held that even though a contract had an express provision that women had to resign if they got married, read in the "context" of another provision on gross inefficiency it could not apply.
Jump up ^ (1875-76) LR 1 CPD 591. See also Payzu Ltd v Hannaford [1918] 2 KB 348. Power and Savage v British India Steam Navigation Co Ltd (1930) 36 Lloyds Law Reports 205
Jump up ^ Nokes v Doncaster Collieries Ltd [1940] AC 1014
Jump up ^ Gunton v Richmond-Upon Thames LBC [1980] ICR 755
Jump up ^ [2012] UKSC 63
Jump up ^ [1974] ICR 428, 430
Jump up ^ See also Laws v London Chronicle (Indicator Newspapers) Ltd [1959] 1 WLR 698, holding that an employee's failure to obey an employer's instruction was a breach of contract, but not one serious enough to justify termination without notice.
Jump up ^ [1974] ICR 428
Jump up ^ Contrast Jones v Gwent County Council [1992] IRLR 521, Hill v CA Parsons & Co Ltd [1972] Ch 305, Irani v Southampton and South West Hampshire HA [1985] ICR 590 and Mezey v South West London & St George's Mental Health NHS Trust [2010] IRLR 512
Jump up ^ [2011] UKSC 58
Jump up ^ See Hill v CA Parsons & Co Ltd [1972] Ch 305, where an employee won reinstatement, since the real conflict was with a union attempting to enforce the closed shop rather than the employer.
Jump up ^ [2003] 1 AC 518
Jump up ^ Unfair Dismissal Compensatory Awards: Final impact assessment (2013)
Jump up ^ [2004] UKHL 35, [2004] IRLR 732
Jump up ^ Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2010] EWCA Civ 571, where failure to follow contractual disciplinary procedure led to a surgeon losing his career.
Jump up ^ cf Reda v Flag Ltd [2002] UKPC 38, [2002] IRLR 747, stating that an express term for without cause removal cannot be overridden by an implied term of good faith, thus suggesting a default common law rule would require a good reason for removal.
Jump up ^ Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40. See also Malloch v Aberdeen Corporation [1971] 1 WLR 1578, 1581, where Lord Reid repeated: ‘At common law a master is not bound to hear his servant before he dismisses him. He can act unreasonably or capriciously if he so chooses but the dismissal is valid. The servant has no remedy unless the dismissal is in breach of contract and then the servant’s only remedy is damages for breach of contract.’ This echoes Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd [1909] UKHL 1, [1909] AC 488.
Jump up ^ See Report of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers’ Associations (1968) Cmnd 3623. See the Industrial Relations Bill, Second Reading, Hansard HC Deb (14 December 1970) vol 808 cols 961-1076 and Hansard HC Deb (15 December 1970) vol 808 cols 1126-247 and Third Reading, Hansard HC Deb 24 March 1971 vol 814 cols 547-706
Jump up ^ ERA 1996 s 108. See R (Seymour-Smith) v Secretary of State for Employment [2000] UKHL 12 and (1999) C-167/97
Jump up ^ ERA 1996 s 212 and Ford v Warwickshire CC [1983] ICR 273. Also, under ERA 1996 s 97, if an employer dismisses an employee one week before a year is up without proper notice, the "effective date of termination" will still be after the one-year period and so the employee will still qualify for unfair dismissal rights.
Jump up ^ [1992] ICR 183
Jump up ^ [1978] ICR 221
Jump up ^ See also Woods v WM Car Services (Peterborough) Ltd [1982] ICR 693
Jump up ^ cf Igbo v Johnson, Matthey Chemicals Ltd [1986] ICR 505 (CA) and Logan Salton v Durham CC [1989] IRLR 99, decided before the statutory enactment of s 203(3)
Jump up ^ [1986] ICR 414
Jump up ^ See H Collins, KD Ewing and A McColgan, Labour Law: Cases and Materials (Hart 2005) 492
Jump up ^ [2010] UKSC 41
Jump up ^ [2010] UKSC 41, [37]
Jump up ^ See the Work Constitution Act 1972, the Betriebsverfassungsgesetz §87
Jump up ^ Wilson v United Kingdom [2002] ECHR 552
Jump up ^ See Abernethy v Mott, Hay and Anderson [1974] ICR 323, [1974] IRLR 213 and Smith v Glasgow City District Council [1987] ICR 796, on the consequences of an employer failing to identify a legitimate reason for dismissal.
Jump up ^ See Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones [1983] ICR 17, per Browne-Wilkinson J
Jump up ^ cf Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582 in English tort law. See S Deakin and G Morris, Labour Law (5th edn 2009) 446
Jump up ^ See H Collins, KD Ewing and A McColgan, Labour Law: Law in Context (CUP 2012) 833
Jump up ^ e.g. Orr v Milton Keynes Council [2011] EWCA Civ 62, [78], per Aikens LJ, and Turner v East Midlands Trains Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1470, [19]-[22] Elias LJ, also holding the band of reasonable responsible test would be compatible with HRA 1998 s 3 and ECHR article 8, if it were engaged.
Jump up ^ [2000] ICR 1283
Jump up ^ cf Haddon v Van Den Bergh Foods Ltd [1999] ICR 1150, where the outgoing President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, Morison J, held the band of responses test was like a perversity test, and a full reasonableness test was the law.
Jump up ^ [2011] EWCA Civ 63
Jump up ^ cf Bowater v Northwest London Hospitals NHS Trust [2011] EWCA Civ 63, Longmore LJ, 'the employer cannot be the final arbiter of its own conduct in dismissing an employee.'
Jump up ^ West Midlands Co-op v Tipton [1986] AC 536, [1986] ICR 192
Jump up ^ [1987] UKHL 8
Jump up ^ For an example of the operation of Employment Act 2002, which if not followed let to an automatic finding of unfair dismissal, see Cartwright v King’s College, London [2010] EWCA Civ 1146
Jump up ^ TULRCA 1992 s 207A and Sch A2, inserted by Employment Act 2008 s 3
Jump up ^ Norton Tool Co Ltd v Tewson [1972] EW Misc 1
Jump up ^ Unfair Dismissal Compensatory Awards: Final impact assessment (2013). It was £4903 in 2009–2010. See Ministry of Justice, Employment Tribunal and EAT statistics 2009-10 (3 September 2010)
Jump up ^ P Lewis, 'An Analysis of Why Legislation Has Failed to Provide Employment Protection for Unfairly Dismissed Workers' (1981) 19 British Journal of Industrial Relations 316
Jump up ^ [2011] UKSC 58
Jump up ^ nb Societe Generale, London Branch v Geys [2012] UKSC 63, the Supreme Court confirmed that an employment relationship does not terminate until the employee accepts an employer's repudiation.
Jump up ^ See Hansard HC Deb (26 April 1965) vol 711, cols 33-160, Second Reading of the Bill, Mr Ray Gunter
Jump up ^ Murray v Foyle Meats Ltd [1999] UKHL 30
Jump up ^ [1977] ICR 235
Jump up ^ Safeway Stores plc v Burrell [1997] ICR 523
Jump up ^ [1979] ICR 542
Jump up ^ [1982] ICR 156
Jump up ^ British Aerospace plc v Green [1995] EWCA Civ 26, refusal to disclose assessment forms was legitimate in absence of any specific allegations.
Jump up ^ [2009] EWCA Civ 387
Jump up ^ Taylor v Kent CC [1969] 2 QB 560
Jump up ^ [1976] ICR 313
Jump up ^ Optical Express Ltd v Williams [2007] IRLR 936
Jump up ^ Collective Redundancies Directive 98/59/EC art 2
Jump up ^ [1940] AC 1014
Jump up ^ The French Code du Travail of 1928 contained the forerunner, now found in Code du Travail article L 122-12. See also, E Herz, ‘The Protection of Employees on the Termination of Contracts’ (1954) LXIX(4) International Labour Review, an early theory of acquired rights.
Jump up ^ See Land Registration Act 2002 Sch 3, para 1. In Germany, the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch § 613a(1), corresponds to the TUD 2001 article 3. It was first introduced in 1972, by analogy with BGB §566 which contains the analogous principle that ‘Kauf bricht nicht Miete’, or "conveyances don't break leases".
Jump up ^ [1988] UKHL 10, [1989] ICR 341
Jump up ^ Wilson v St Helens BC and British Fuels Ltd v Baxendale [1998] UKHL 37, [1999] 2 AC 52
Jump up ^ Credit Suisse First Boston (Europe) Ltd v Lister [1999] ICR 794
Jump up ^ University of Oxford v Humphreys [2000] IRLR 183
Jump up ^ Süzen v Zehnacker Gebäudereingung GmbH (1997) C-13/95, [1997] ICR 662, where a cleaning lady kept her job at the same school, but a different employer had won the cleaning contract and rehired her
Jump up ^ Süzen (1997) C-13/95, "14 In order to determine whether the conditions for the transfer of an entity are met, it is necessary to consider all the facts characterizing the transaction in question, including in particular [1.] the type of undertaking or business, [2.] whether or not its tangible assets, such as buildings and movable property, are transferred, [3.] the value of its intangible assets at the time of the transfer, [4.] whether or not the majority of its employees are taken over by the new employer, [5.] whether or not its customers are transferred, [6.] the degree of similarity between the activities carried on before and after the transfer, and [7.] the period, if any, for which those activities were suspended." (numbering added)
Jump up ^ (2001) C-172/99, [2001] IRLR 171
Jump up ^ RCO Support Services v Unison [2002] EWCA Civ 464
Jump up ^ cf Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Slater [2007] IRLR 928 and Oakland v Wellswood (Yorkshire) Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1094, [2010] IRLR 82
Jump up ^ IA 1986 s 19 and Sch B1 para 99
Jump up ^ Re Allders Department Stores Ltd [2005] BCC 289
Jump up ^ Leeds United AFC Ltd [2008] BCC 11
Jump up ^ Krasner v McMath [2005] EWCA Civ 1072, [2005] IRLR 995
Jump up ^ See IA 1986 ss 176ZA, 175, 176A, 386, Sch 6, s 74(2)
Jump up ^ Insolvency Proceedings (Monetary Limits) Order 1986 (SI 1986/1996)
Jump up ^ See Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 and the Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy Amendment Act 1897 s 2
Jump up ^ ILO Convention No 173 (1992)
Jump up ^ 2008/94/EC, replacing 80/987/EC and 2002/74/EC
Jump up ^ See McMeechan v Secretary of State for Employment [1997] ICR 549, holding an agency worker could claim; Buchan and Ivey v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [1997] IRLR 80, holding the purpose of the fund did not allow managing directors to claim, but cf Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bottrill [2000] EWCA Civ 781, holding a director who was essentially without any autonomy in a group did deserve protection.
Jump up ^ See Mann v Secretary of State for Employment [1999] IRLR 566 and Regeling v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid (1999) C-125/97, [1999] IRLR 379
Jump up ^ See Robins v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (2007) C-278/05, [2007] ICR 779, held that 20% insurance was not enough.
Jump up ^ http://uk.practicallaw.com/3-376-4664#a747288
Jump up ^ See C O’Cinneide, 'The Commission for Equality and Human Rights: A New Institution for New and Uncertain Times' (2007) Industrial Law Journal 141
Jump up ^ A Grice (29 April 2015) Independent
Jump up ^ K Marx, Report of the General Council to the Fourth Annual Congress (1969) quotes "the extension of the principle of free trade, which induces between nations such a competition that the interest of the workman is liable to be lost sight of and sacrificed in the fierce international race between capitalists, demands that such [unions] should be still further extended and made international."
Jump up ^ Treaty of Versailles 1919, Part XIII, Section I and art 427
Jump up ^ See generally, KD Ewing, Britain and the ILO (2nd edn IER 1994) 16. Two further general working time conventions are the Forty-Hour Week Convention, 1935 No 51 and the Holidays with Pay Convention, 1936 No 52
Jump up ^ There are 189 Conventions; however, some have been superseded by others. For instance, Conventions Nos 2, 34, 96 and 181 all concern private employment agencies, but only Convention 181 is in force.
Jump up ^ Singapore Ministerial Declaration (13 December 1996)
Jump up ^ See KA Elliott and RB Freeman, Can Labor Standards Improve under Globalization? (Institute for International Economics 2003)
Jump up ^ e.g. EU-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (14 May 2011) OJ 2011 L127, article 13
Jump up ^ Tariff Preference Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 arts 7, 8, 15 and Annex II and III
Jump up ^ [2011] UKSC 36
Jump up ^ [2006] UKHL 3, [2006] 1 All ER 823
Jump up ^ [2011] UKSC 36
Jump up ^ [2012] UKSC 1
Jump up ^ Rome I Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 593/2008)
Jump up ^ Brussels I Regulation (EC) No 44/2001
Jump up ^ See Rome I, recital 23 and Brussels I, recital 13
Jump up ^ (2008) C-319/05
References[edit]
Texts
H Collins, KD Ewing and A McColgan, Labour Law, Text, Cases and Materials (2nd edn Hart 2005) ISBN 1-84113-362-0
S Deakin, G Morris, Labour Law (5th edn Hart 2009)
M Freedland, 'Employment' in H Beale et al. (ed), Chitty on Contracts (30th edn Sweet and Maxwell 2009)
Treatises
H Collins, Justice in Dismissal (OUP 1992)
H Collins, Nine proposals for the reform of the law on unfair dismissal (Institute of Employment Rights 2004)
KD Ewing (ed), The Right to Strike: From the Trade Disputes Act 1906 to a Trade Union Freedom Bill 2006 (Institute for Employment Rights 2006)
A Fox, Beyond Contract: Work, Power and Trust Relations (Faber 1974)
B Hepple, Labour Laws and Global Trade (Hart 2005)
M Freedland, The Contract of Employment (1976)
O Kahn-Freund, Labour and the Law (Hamlyn Lectures 1972)
S Webb and B Webb, History of Trade Unionism (1894)
S Webb and B Webb, Industrial Democracy (Longmans 1902)
KW Wedderburn, The Worker and the Law (Sweet and Maxwell 1986) ISBN 0-421-37060-2
Articles
C Barnard, 'The UK and Posted Workers: The Effect of Commission v Luxembourg on the Territorial Application of British Labour Law' (2009) 38 ILJ 122
C Barnard, S Deakin and R Hobbs, ‘Opting Out of the 48 Hour Week: Employer Necessity or Individual Choice’ (2003) 32 ILJ 223
N Countouris, 'The Temporary Agency Work Directive: Another Broken Promise?' [2009] 38(3) ILJ 329
PL Davies and C Kilpatrick, ‘UK Worker Representation after Single Channel’ (2004) 33 ILJ 121
S Deakin, 'Regulatory Competition after Laval' (2008) 10 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 581
S Deakin, ‘Does the ‘personal employment contract’ provide a basis for the reunification of labour law?’ [2007] ILJ 36
A Döse-Deigenopoulos and A Höland, ‘Dismissal of Employees in the Federal Republic of Germany’ (1985) 48(5) Modern Law Review 539-563
KD Ewing, 'The State and Industrial Relations: 'Collective Laissez-Faire' Revisited' (1998) 5 Historical Studies in Industrial Relations 1
KD Ewing, 'Job Security and the Contract of Employment' (1989) 18 ILJ 217
KD Ewing and J Hendy QC, 'The Dramatic Implications of Demir and Baykara (2010) 39(1) ILJ 2
KD Ewing and G M Truter,‘The Information and Consultation of Employees’ Regulations: Voluntarism’s Bitter Legacy’ (2005) 68 MLR 626
T Goriely, ‘Arbitrary Deductions from Pay and the Proposed Repeal of the Truck Acts’ (1983) 12 ILJ 236
BA Hepple and BW Napier, ‘Temporary Workers and the Law’ (1978) 7 Industrial Law Journal 84
O Kahn-Freund, 'Labour Law' in M Ginsberg (ed), Law and Opinion in England in the 20th Century (Stevens 1959)
D Kershaw, 'No End in Sight for the History of Corporate Law: The Case of Employee Participation in Corporate Governance' (2002) 2 Journal of Corporate Law Studies 34
E McGaughey, 'Should Agency Workers be Treated Differently?' (2010) SSRN
C Mogridge, ‘Illegal Contracts of Employment: Loss of Statutory Protection’ (1981) 20 ILJ 23
B Simpson, ‘The National Minimum Wage Five Years On’ (2004) 33 ILJ 22
I Steele, ‘Sex Discrimination and the Material Factor Defence under the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Equality Act 2010’ (2010) 39 ILJ 264
C Summers, ‘Collective agreements and the law of contracts’ (1969) 90 Yale Law Journal 539
KW Wedderburn, 'Shareholders’ rights and the rule in Foss v Harbottle' [1957] 16 Cambridge Law Journal 194
KW Wedderburn, 'Employees, Partnership and Company Law' [2002] 31(2) Industrial Law Journal 99
Reports
Eleventh and Final Report of the Royal Commission appointed to Inquire into the Organisation and Rules of Trade Unions and Other Associations (1868–1869) Parliamentary Papers vol xxxi
Committee on Relations between Employers and Employed, Final Report (1918) Cmnd 9153
Whitley Committee, Interim Report on Joint Standing Industrial Councils (1917) Cmnd 8606
J Whitley, Royal Commission on Labour in India (1931) Cmd 3883
Lord Donovan, Report of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers’ Associations (1965–1968) Cmnd 3623
HM Government, In Place of Strife (1969) Cmnd 3888
Lord Robens, Report of the Committee on Health and Safety at Work (1972) Cmnd 5034
A Bullock, Report of the committee of inquiry on industrial democracy (1977) Cmnd 6706
Green Paper, Trade Union Immunities (1981) Cmnd 8128
Department of Employment, Democracy in Trade Unions (1983) Cm 8778
Department of Employment, Trade Unions and their Members (1987) Cm 95
R Goode, Pension Law Reform (1993) Cmnd 2342
A New Partnership for Welfare: Partnership in Pensions (1998) Cmnd 4179
Simplicity, Security and Choice: Working and Saving for Retirement (2002) Cmnd 5677
External links[edit]
Case law
Page for employment judgments, including Employment Tribunal
Employment Appeal Tribunal judgments on bailii.org.uk
List of prominent labour law cases on bailii.org.uk
National
Employment rights guidance from direct.gov.uk
DBIS Employment Legislation - PL712 - Meaning of dismissal
DBIS Employment Legislation - PL712 - Making a complaint
International
Website with information on worker participation in the EU
List of ILO Conventions ratified by the UK
[show]
v
t
e
Labour law of Europe
Sovereign states
Albania
Andorra
Armenia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Kazakhstan
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Malta
Moldova
Monaco
Montenegro
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
San Marino
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
States with limited
recognition
Abkhazia
Artsakh
Kosovo
Northern Cyprus
South Ossetia
Transnistria
Dependencies and
other entities
Åland
Faroe Islands
Gibraltar
Guernsey
Isle of Man
Jersey
Svalbard
[show]
v
t
e
Economy of the United Kingdom
Companies
Co-operatives
Employee-owned companies
FTSE 100 Index
FTSE 250 Index
FTSE Fledgling Index
FTSE SmallCap Index
Government-owned companies
Currency,
governance,
regulation
Bank of England
Governor of the Bank of England
Budget
Company law
Competition Commission
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
Financial Conduct Authority
Gilts
HM Revenue and Customs
HM Treasury
Chancellor of the Exchequer
Debt Management Office
Monetary Policy Committee
Office for Budget Responsibility
Office of Fair Trading
Pound sterling
Banknotes
Coinage
Taxation
UK Statistics Authority
UK Trade & Investment
History
Chronological
1659–1849 Navigation Acts
Agricultural Revolution
Industrial Revolution
Panic of 1796–97
1815–46 Corn Laws
New Imperialism 1830s–1945
Second Industrial Revolution 1860s–1914
1873–79 Long Depression
1926 general strike
1929–39 Great Depression
1948–52 Marshall Plan
1974 Three-Day Week
1979 Winter of Discontent
1986 Big Bang
1992 Black Wednesday
Late-2000s recession
2008 bank rescue package
2009 bank rescue package
Recurrent
Economic geography
Free trade
Gold standard
Recessions and recoveries
National champions policy
Economic liberalism
Privatisation
Nationalisation
Nations,
regions,
cities
England
Atlantic Gateway
Birmingham
Big City Plan
Bristol
Cornwall
Croydon
Croydon Vision 2020
Devon
Expansion plans for Milton Keynes
Fishing
Leeds
List of counties by GVA
Liverpool
London
East London Tech City
London Plan
M4 corridor
M11 Corridor
Manchester
Reading
Sheffield
Silicon Fen
Thames Gateway
Tourism
Transport
N. Ireland
Belfast
Transport
Scotland
Aberdeen
Agriculture
Edinburgh
Industrialisation
Fishing
Oil and gas
Renewable energy
Silicon Glen
Tourism
Transport
Whisky
Wales
Cardiff (Cardiff Bay)
Swansea
Tourism
Transport
People
and labour
Billionaires
Businesspeople
Demography
Income
Poverty
Labour law
Equal opportunities
Minimum wage
Working Time Directive
Pensions
Trades unions
Trades Union Congress
Unemployment
Sectors
Resource &
production
Energy/Renewable energy
Biodiesel
Coal
Geothermal
Fracking
Hydroelectricity
Marine
North Sea oil
Solar
Wind
Food
Agriculture
Cider
Wine
Beer
Fishing
English
Scottish
Materials
Forestry
Mining
Financial
services
Baltic Exchange
Banking
List of banks
List of UK building societies
Canary Wharf
The City
Royal Albert Dock (future)
Euronext.liffe
Glasgow International Financial Services District
Insurance
Lloyd's of London
LCH
London Interbank Offered Rate
London Metal Exchange
London Platinum and Palladium Market
London Stock Exchange
Alternative Investment Market
Other
Education
Entertainment & Media
Cinema
Gambling
Newspapers
Radio
Television
Theatre
Healthcare
Legal services
Manufacturing
Aerospace
Automotive
Pharmaceuticals
Exports
Property
Architecture
Construction
Housing
Real estate
Science and technology
Internet
Telecommunications
Supermarkets
Tourism
Transport
Aviation
Rail
Inter-city
High-speed
Trade and
business
organisations
Business organisations
British Bankers' Association
British Chambers of Commerce
Confederation of British Industry
Co-operatives UK
EEF
Federation of Small Businesses
Industry trade groups
Institute of Directors
UK Payments Administration
Category
Commons
[show]
v
t
e
Law of the United Kingdom
Common fields
Constitutional law
Civil liberties
Company and insolvency law
Competition law
Labour law
Commercial law
European Union law
Parallel fields
Scots delict and English tort law
Scots and English contract law
Scots and English land law
Trusts
Scots and English administrative law
Scots and English criminal law
Scots and English family law
Scots and English civil procedure
Related systems
English law
Northern Ireland law
Scots law
Welsh law
Law of the British Virgin Islands
Law of Australia
Law of Canada
Law of India
Law of the Republic of Ireland
Law of New Zealand
Law of the United States
Anglo-Saxon law
Law of Hong Kong
Common law
Equity
English case law
See also
Legal services in the United Kingdom
United Kingdom law category
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom_labour_law&oldid=796516997"
Categories:
United Kingdom labour law
Labour relations in the United Kingdom
Hidden categories:
Webarchive template wayback links
Use British English Oxford spelling from April 2017
Use dmy dates from April 2017
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
العربية
Français
Edit links
This page was last edited on 21 August 2017, at 11:16.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

attrs: id class style

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

value: bdi

values:
/wiki/User_talk:Wikidea
mw-usertoollinks-talk
User talk:Wikidea

attrs: id class role

values:
revision-info-current
plainlinks fmbox fmbox-system
presentation

values:
/wiki/Working_population
mw-redirect
Working population

values:
/wiki/Equity_(legal_concept)
mw-redirect
Equity (legal concept)

values:
/wiki/Occupational_pension
mw-redirect
Occupational pension

values:
/wiki/Right_to_strike
mw-redirect
Right to strike

values:
/wiki/Work_council
mw-redirect
Work council

values: Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992

values:
/wiki/Agency_workers
mw-redirect
Agency workers

values: Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006

values: History of labour law in the United Kingdom

values:
/wiki/King_Richard_II
mw-redirect
King Richard II

values: An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations

values: float: right; clear: right; margin: 0.5em 0 0.8em 1.4em; width:22em; padding: 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa; font-size: 88%; background-color: #c6dbf7;

values:
/wiki/R_v_Knowles,_ex_parte_Somersett
mw-redirect
R v Knowles, ex parte Somersett

values:
/wiki/Industrial_revolution
mw-redirect
Industrial revolution

values:
/wiki/Laissez_faire
mw-redirect
Laissez faire

values: Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act 1875

values: Mogul Steamship Co Ltd v McGregor, Gow & Co

values: Taff Vale Railway Co v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants

values:
/wiki/Economic_tort
mw-redirect
Economic tort

values:
/wiki/UK_Labour_Party
mw-redirect
UK Labour Party

values:
/wiki/Old_Age_Pensions_Act_1908
mw-redirect
Old Age Pensions Act 1908

values:
/wiki/Versailles_Treaty
mw-redirect
Versailles Treaty

values:
/wiki/US_Clayton_Act_1914
mw-redirect
US Clayton Act 1914

values:
/wiki/Whitley_Councils
mw-redirect
Whitley Councils

values:
/wiki/Joint_Industrial_Councils
mw-redirect
Joint Industrial Councils

values:
/wiki/Sidney_Webb
mw-redirect
Sidney Webb

values:
/wiki/Industrial_Democracy_(book)
mw-redirect
Industrial Democracy (book)

values:
/wiki/Social_Chapter
mw-redirect
Social Chapter

values: Report of the committee of inquiry on industrial democracy

values:
/wiki/Secondary_action
mw-redirect
Secondary action

values: Edit section: Employment rights and duties

values:
/wiki/US_labor_law
mw-redirect
US labor law

values:
/wiki/Safe_system_of_work
mw-redirect
Safe system of work

values:
/wiki/Fair_dismissal
mw-redirect
Fair dismissal

values:
/wiki/Cassidy_v_Minister_of_Health
mw-redirect
Cassidy v Minister of Health

values: Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v SS for Pensions

values: Market Invest Ltd v Minister for Social Security

values:
/wiki/McMeechan_v_SS_for_Employment
mw-redirect
McMeechan v SS for Employment

values:
/wiki/Muscat_v_Cable_%26_Wireless_Plc
mw-redirect
Muscat v Cable & Wireless Plc

values:
/wiki/Muschett_v_H_M_Prison_Service
mw-redirect
Muschett v H M Prison Service

values: Scope of UK labour law protection (page does not exist)

values: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values: width: 350px; text-align: center; font-size: 80%; line-height: 1.5em; background-color: #fafafa; float: right; clear: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em;;padding:3px

values:
/wiki/Trade_unions
mw-redirect
Trade unions

values: Anthony Clarke, Baron Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony

values: width: 20px; vertical-align: top; border: none; color: #B2B7F2; font-size: 40px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-weight: bold; line-height: .6em; text-align: left; padding: 10px 10px;

values:
/wiki/Purposive_theory
mw-redirect
Purposive theory

values: vertical-align: top; border: none; padding: 4px 10px;

values: width: 20px; vertical-align: bottom; border: none; color: #B2B7F2; font-size: 40px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-weight: bold; line-height: .6em; text-align: right; padding: 10px 10px;

values: margin:auto; border-collapse: collapse; border: none; background-color: transparent; width: auto;

values:
/wiki/Employment_Information_Directive
mw-redirect
Employment Information Directive

values:
/wiki/Wiluszynski_v_Tower_Hamlets_LBC
mw-redirect
Wiluszynski v Tower Hamlets LBC

values:
/wiki/SS_for_Employment_v_ASLEF_(No_2)
mw-redirect
SS for Employment v ASLEF (No 2)

values:
/wiki/Scally_v_Southern_Health_Board
mw-redirect
Scally v Southern Health Board

values:
/wiki/Crossley_v_Faithful_%26_Gould_Ltd
mw-redirect
Crossley v Faithful & Gould Ltd

values:
/wiki/Keen_v_Commerzbank_AG
mw-redirect
Keen v Commerzbank AG

values: Alexander v Standard Telephones Ltd (No 2)

attrs: alt src width height class data-file-width data-file-height

values: Template talk:Clist implied terms at work (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Mahmud_and_Malik_v_BCCI_SA
mw-redirect
Mahmud and Malik v BCCI SA

values: Mallone v BPB Industries plc (page does not exist)

values: Secretary of State for Employment v ASLEF (No 2)

values: British Telecommunications plc v Ticehurst (page does not exist)

values: Nottingham University v Fishel (page does not exist)

values: Bateman v ASDA Stores Ltd (page does not exist)

values: Cornwall County Council v Prater (page does not exist)

values: Duncombe v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families

values: Walker v Northumberland CC (page does not exist)

values: Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd

values:
/wiki/Hewison_v_Meridian_Shipping_Ltd
mw-redirect
Hewison v Meridian Shipping Ltd

values: Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd

values:
/wiki/Barker_v_Corus
mw-redirect
Barker v Corus

values: Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992

values: Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (page does not exist)

values: R v Associated Octel Co Ltd (page does not exist)

values: Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1967 (page does not exist)

values: Employer's Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969

values: Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002

values:
/wiki/UK_labour_law
mw-redirect
UK labour law

values:
/wiki/UK_enterprise_law
mw-redirect
UK enterprise law

values:
/wiki/Insurance_in_the_UK
mw-redirect
Insurance in the UK

values:
/wiki/Factories_Acts
mw-redirect
Factories Acts

values: Health and safety regulations in the United Kingdom

values:
/wiki/Health_and_Safety_Directive
mw-redirect
Health and Safety Directive

values:
/wiki/Minister_of_Health
mw-redirect
Minister of Health

values:
/wiki/NHS_Act_1946
mw-redirect
NHS Act 1946

values: Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992

values: Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969

values: Hewison v Meridian Shipping Services Pte Ltd

values:
/wiki/Jointly_and_severally_liable
mw-redirect
Jointly and severally liable

values:
/wiki/Proportionate_liability
mw-redirect
Proportionate liability

values:
/wiki/Walton_v_Ind_Living_Organisation
mw-redirect
Walton v Ind Living Organisation

values:
/wiki/Leisure_Employment_Ltd_v_HMRC
mw-redirect
Leisure Employment Ltd v HMRC

values: Nerva v United Kingdom (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Effective_aggregate_demand
mw-redirect
Effective aggregate demand

values: Walton v Independent Living Organisation Ltd

values: Edit section: Working time and child care

values:
/wiki/Work-life_balance
mw-redirect
Work-life balance

values:
/wiki/Working_Time_Directive
mw-redirect
Working Time Directive

values: Sindicato de Médicos de Asistencia Pública v Conselleria de Sanidad y Consumo de la Generalidad Valenciana

values:
/wiki/R_v_DTI_ex_parte_BECTU
mw-redirect
R v DTI ex parte BECTU

values:
/wiki/Stringer_v_HMRC
mw-redirect
Stringer v HMRC

values: Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009

values:
/wiki/Zero_hours_contracts
mw-redirect
Zero hours contracts

values:
/wiki/Global_financial_crisis
mw-redirect
Global financial crisis

values:
/wiki/Health_and_safety
mw-redirect
Health and safety

values:
/wiki/Less_bargaining_power
mw-redirect
Less bargaining power

values:
/wiki/Landeshauptstadt_Kiel_v_Jaegar
mw-redirect
Landeshauptstadt Kiel v Jaegar

values:
/wiki/Pregnant_Workers_Directive
mw-redirect
Pregnant Workers Directive

values:
/wiki/Parental_Leave_Directive
mw-redirect
Parental Leave Directive

values: Maternity and Parental Leave, etc Regulations 1999

values: Paternity and Adoption Leave Regulations 2002

values: Additional Paternity Leave Regulations 2010

values: Flexible Working (Eligibility, Complaints and Remedies) Regulations 2002 (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Maternity_leave
mw-redirect
Maternity leave

values: Richmond Precision Engineering Ltd v Pearce

values: Allonby v Accrington and Rossendale College

values: Bishopsgate Investment Ltd v Maxwell (No 2)

values:
/wiki/Occupational_Retirement_Directive
mw-redirect
Occupational Retirement Directive

values: The Pensions Regulator v Lehman Brothers (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Pensions_in_the_UK
mw-redirect
Pensions in the UK

values:
/wiki/State_pension
mw-redirect
State pension

values:
/wiki/Defined_contribution
mw-redirect
Defined contribution

values:
/wiki/Defined_benefit
mw-redirect
Defined benefit

values:
/wiki/Final_salary
mw-redirect
Final salary

values:
/wiki/Career_average
mw-redirect
Career average

values:
/wiki/Member_nominated_trustees
mw-redirect
Member nominated trustees

values:
/wiki/UK_company_law
mw-redirect
UK company law

values:
/wiki/UK_insolvency_law
mw-redirect
UK insolvency law

values:
/wiki/Pensions_Regulator
mw-redirect
Pensions Regulator

values:
/wiki/UK_tax_history
mw-redirect
UK tax history

values: Income Tax Act 1803 (page does not exist)

values: Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003

values: Social Security Contributions (Intermediaries) Regulations 2000 (page does not exist)

values: Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005

values:
/wiki/Universal_credit
mw-redirect
Universal credit

values: Family Allowances and National Insurance Act 1952 (page does not exist)

values: Family Allowances Act and National Insurance Act 1956 (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/ECHR_article_8
mw-redirect
ECHR article 8

values: Copland v United Kingdom (page does not exist)

values: Barbulescu v Romania (page does not exist)

values: Halford v United Kingdom (page does not exist)

values: Kara v United Kingdom (page does not exist)

values: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000

values: Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000 (page does not exist)

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 442

values:
/wiki/ECHR_article_10
mw-redirect
ECHR article 10

values: Pay v United Kingdom (page does not exist)

values: Glasenapp v Germany (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Vogt_v_Germany
mw-redirect
Vogt v Germany

values: Ahmed v United Kingdom (page does not exist)

values: Grigoriades v Greece (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/ECHR_article_6
mw-redirect
ECHR article 6

values: R (Wright) v Secretary of State for Health (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/ECHR_article_11
mw-redirect
ECHR article 11

values:
/wiki/Collectively_bargaining
mw-redirect
Collectively bargaining

values:
/wiki/Picketing_(protest)
mw-redirect
Picketing (protest)

values: List of International Labour Organization Conventions

values: Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights

values: s:European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

values:
/wiki/ASLEF_v_United_Kingdom
mw-redirect
ASLEF v United Kingdom

values: Ecclestone v National Union of Journalists

values:
/wiki/Trade_unions_in_the_UK
mw-redirect
Trade unions in the UK

values:
/wiki/List_of_trade_unions_in_the_UK
mw-redirect
List of trade unions in the UK

values: Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949

values:
/wiki/Criminal_conspiracy
mw-redirect
Criminal conspiracy

values:
/wiki/General_secretary
mw-redirect
General secretary

values:
/wiki/Certification_Officer
mw-redirect
Certification Officer

values:
/wiki/TULRCA_1992
mw-redirect
TULRCA 1992

values: Template talk:Clist union constitutions (page does not exist)

values: Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers

values: National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers

values: List of trade unions in the United Kingdom

values:
/wiki/Postal_ballot
mw-redirect
Postal ballot

values: Template talk:Clist collective bargain (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/R_(Kwik-Fit_(GB)_Ltd)_v_CAC
mw-redirect
R (Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd) v CAC

values: Young, James and Webster v United Kingdom

values:
/wiki/NUGSAT_v_Albury_Brothers_Ltd
mw-redirect
NUGSAT v Albury Brothers Ltd

values: R (National Union of Journalists) v Central Arbitration Committee

values: Creation of legal relations in English law

values:
/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act_1935
mw-redirect
National Labor Relations Act 1935

values:
/wiki/International_socialism
mw-redirect
International socialism

values: Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010

values:
/wiki/Income_inequality
mw-redirect
Income inequality

values:
/wiki/Automatic_enrollment
mw-redirect
Automatic enrollment

values:
/wiki/Fair_share_agreement
mw-redirect
Fair share agreement

values: Template talk:Clist strike (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Taff_Vale_Railway_Co_v_ASRS
mw-redirect
Taff Vale Railway Co v ASRS

values: Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co Ltd v Veitch

values:
/wiki/JT_Stratford_%26_Son_v_Lindley
mw-redirect
JT Stratford & Son v Lindley

values: Merkur Island Shipping Corporation v Laughton (page does not exist)

values: UCL Hospitals NHS Trust v Unison (page does not exist)

values: Universe Tankships Inc of Monrovia v ITWF (page does not exist)

values: British Airways Plc v Unite the Union (No 2) (page does not exist)

values: Metrobus Ltd v Unite the Union (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/The_Rosella
mw-redirect
The Rosella

values:
/wiki/Peasants%27_Revolt_of_1381
mw-redirect
Peasants' Revolt of 1381

values:
/wiki/Indian_Independence_Movement
mw-redirect
Indian Independence Movement

values:
/wiki/Democratic_society
mw-redirect
Democratic society

values:
/wiki/Human_right
mw-redirect
Human right

values: International Labour Organization Convention 87

values:
/wiki/EU_Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights
mw-redirect
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

values:
/wiki/Conspiracy_to_injure
mw-redirect
Conspiracy to injure

values:
/wiki/Inducement_of_breach_of_contract
mw-redirect
Inducement of breach of contract

values:
/wiki/Lord_Denning_MR
mw-redirect
Lord Denning MR

values:
/wiki/ILO_Convention_87
mw-redirect
ILO Convention 87

values: Edit section: Information and consultation

values:
/wiki/Whitley_Council
mw-redirect
Whitley Council

values:
/wiki/Royal_Mail_Group_Ltd_v_CWU
mw-redirect
Royal Mail Group Ltd v CWU

values:
/wiki/United_States_of_America_v_Nolan
mw-redirect
United States of America v Nolan

values: Information and Consultation Regulations 2004

values:
/wiki/European_Works_Council_Directive
mw-redirect
European Works Council Directive

values:
/wiki/Financial_year
mw-redirect
Financial year

values: Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

values:
/wiki/Transfers_of_undertakings
mw-redirect
Transfers of undertakings

values: Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004

values:
/wiki/Transnational_work_council
mw-redirect
Transnational work council

values: Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 1999

values:
/wiki/Bullock_Report
mw-redirect
Bullock Report

values:
/wiki/European_Company_Regulation
mw-redirect
European Company Regulation

values:
/wiki/Employee_Involvement_Directive
mw-redirect
Employee Involvement Directive

values: Cross Border Merger Directive (page does not exist)

values: Workplace participation in the UK (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/General_meeting
mw-redirect
General meeting

values:
/wiki/Asset_managers
mw-redirect
Asset managers

values:
/wiki/European_Company_Statute
mw-redirect
European Company Statute

values:
/wiki/Universities_in_the_UK
mw-redirect
Universities in the UK

values:
/wiki/Codetermination_Act_1976
mw-redirect
Codetermination Act 1976

values:
/wiki/Employee_share_schemes
mw-redirect
Employee share schemes

values:
/wiki/Member_nominated_trustee
mw-redirect
Member nominated trustee

values:
/wiki/UK_employment_equality_law
mw-redirect
UK employment equality law

values:
/wiki/Content_of_their_character
mw-redirect
Content of their character

values:
/wiki/Social_inclusion
mw-redirect
Social inclusion

values: Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000

values:
/wiki/Horsey_v_Dyfed_County_Council
mw-redirect
Horsey v Dyfed County Council

values:
/wiki/R_(EOC)_v_Birmingham_City_Council
mw-redirect
R (EOC) v Birmingham City Council

values: Smith v Safeway plc (page does not exist)

values: Grant v South-West Trains Ltd (page does not exist)

values: Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police v Khan

values: Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

values:
/wiki/English_v_Sanderson_Blinds_Ltd
mw-redirect
English v Sanderson Blinds Ltd

values: United Kingdom employment discrimination law

values: Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary

values:
/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof
mw-redirect
Legal burden of proof

values:
/wiki/Griggs_v_Duke_Power_Co
mw-redirect
Griggs v Duke Power Co

values:
/wiki/Redfearn_v_Serco_Ltd
mw-redirect
Redfearn v Serco Ltd

values:
/wiki/Eweida_v_British_Airways_plc
mw-redirect
Eweida v British Airways plc

values:
/wiki/Kutz-Bauer_v_Hansestadt_Hamburg
mw-redirect
Kutz-Bauer v Hansestadt Hamburg

values: Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College

values: Ministry of Defence v DeBique (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Ladele_v_Islington_LBC
mw-redirect
Ladele v Islington LBC

values:
/wiki/Lord_Neuberger_MR
mw-redirect
Lord Neuberger MR

values: R (Seymour-Smith) v Secretary of State for Employment

values:
/wiki/Equal_Treatment_Directive
mw-redirect
Equal Treatment Directive

values:
/wiki/Employment_Tribunal
mw-redirect
Employment Tribunal

values: Template talk:Clist harass and victimise (page does not exist)

values: Pearce v Governing Body of Mayfield School

values: Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Trust

values:
/wiki/EOC_v_SS_for_Trade_and_Industry
mw-redirect
EOC v SS for Trade and Industry

values: Nagarajan v London Regional Transport (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/West_Yorkshire_Police_v_Khan
mw-redirect
West Yorkshire Police v Khan

values:
/wiki/Waters_v_Metropolitan_Police
mw-redirect
Waters v Metropolitan Police

values:
/wiki/Vicariously_liable
mw-redirect
Vicariously liable

values: Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan

values: Lambeth LBC v Commission for Racial Equality

values: Tottenham Green Nursery v Marshall (No 2)

values: Kutz-Bauer v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg

values: Sirdar v The Army Board & Secretary of State for Defence

values: Clay Cross (Quarry Services) Ltd v Fletcher

values:
/wiki/Speech_therapist
mw-redirect
Speech therapist

values:
/wiki/Age_discrimination
mw-redirect
Age discrimination

values: Edit section: Disability and positive action

values: Collins v Royal National Theatre Board Ltd

values:
/wiki/O%27Hanlon_v_HMRC
mw-redirect
O'Hanlon v HMRC

values: Goodwin v Patent Office (page does not exist)

values: Vicary v British Telecommunications plc (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Lewisham_LBC_v_Malcolm_and_EHRC
mw-redirect
Lewisham LBC v Malcolm and EHRC

values: O’Hanlon v Revenue and Customs Commissioners

values:
/wiki/Boards_of_directors
mw-redirect
Boards of directors

values: Template talk:Clist positive discrimination

values:
/wiki/Grutter_v_Bollinger
mw-redirect
Grutter v Bollinger

values:
/wiki/Re_Badeck%E2%80%99s_application
mw-redirect
Re Badeck’s application

values:
/wiki/G%C3%B6teborg_University
mw-redirect
Göteborg University

values: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

values:
/wiki/UK_agency_work
mw-redirect
UK agency work

values:
/wiki/Part-time_Workers_Directive
mw-redirect
Part-time Workers Directive

values: Matthews v Kent and Medway Fire Authority

values: O'Brien v Ministry of Justice (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Fixed-Term_Work_Directive
mw-redirect
Fixed-Term Work Directive

values: Adeneler v Ellinikos Organismos Galaktos (page does not exist)

values: Del Cerro Alonso v Osakidetza (page does not exist)

values: Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003

values: Fixed-Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002

values:
/wiki/Universal_basic_income
mw-redirect
Universal basic income

values:
/wiki/UK_Supreme_Court
mw-redirect
UK Supreme Court

values: Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate

values: Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994

values:
/wiki/Gangmasters_Licensing_Authority
mw-redirect
Gangmasters Licensing Authority

values: Edit section: Free movement and immigration

values: Template talk:Clist worker movement (page does not exist)

values: Free Movement of Workers Regulation 2011

values: Steymann v Staatssecretaris van Justitie

values: Angonese v Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA

values: Weigel v Finanzlandesdirektion für Vorarlberg

values:
/wiki/Citizens_Rights_Directive_2004
mw-redirect
Citizens Rights Directive 2004

values:
/wiki/Gravier_v_City_of_Liege
mw-redirect
Gravier v City of Liege

values:
/wiki/Metock_v_Minister_for_Justice
mw-redirect
Metock v Minister for Justice

values:
/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_for_workers
mw-redirect
Freedom of movement for workers

values: Immigration to the United Kingdom since 1922

values:
/wiki/Immigration_Rules
mw-redirect
Immigration Rules

values: Illegal immigration to the United Kingdom

values: List of countries by inequality-adjusted HDI

values: Taylor v Secretary of State for Scotland

values:
/wiki/Horkulak_v_Cantor_Fitzgerald_Int
mw-redirect
Horkulak v Cantor Fitzgerald Int

values:
/wiki/Lord_Coleridge_CJ
mw-redirect
Lord Coleridge CJ

values:
/wiki/Donovan_Report_1968
mw-redirect
Donovan Report 1968

values: Termination of Employment Convention, 1982

values:
/wiki/Buckland_v_Bournemouth_University
mw-redirect
Buckland v Bournemouth University

values: Adamas Ltd v Cheung (page does not exist)

values: Dunnachie v Kingston-upon-Hull City Council

values: Nelson v British Broadcasting Corporation (No 2)

values: Notcutt v Universal Equipment Co (London) Ltd

values:
/wiki/Wednesbury_unreasonableness
mw-redirect
Wednesbury unreasonableness

values:
/wiki/Proportionality_test
mw-redirect
Proportionality test

values: Bowater v Northwest London Hospitals NHS Trust

values:
/wiki/Conflicts_of_interest
mw-redirect
Conflicts of interest

values:
/wiki/Euston_Tower
mw-redirect
Euston Tower

values: Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service

values: Murphy v Epsom College (page does not exist)

values: Thomas & Betts Manufacturing Ltd v Harding

values:
/wiki/Redundancy_pay
mw-redirect
Redundancy pay

values:
/wiki/Second_Reading
mw-redirect
Second Reading

values: float: left; clear: left; margin: 0.5em 1.4em 0.8em 0; width:22em; padding: 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa; font-size: 88%; background-color: #c6dbf7;

values:
/wiki/Browne-Wilkinson_J
mw-redirect
Browne-Wilkinson J

values:
/wiki/Rolls_Royce_plc
mw-redirect
Rolls Royce plc

values: Edit section: Undertaking transfers and insolvency

values: Mergers and acquisitions in United Kingdom law

values: Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Emp) Regs 2006

values:
/wiki/Litster_v_Forth_Dry_Dock
mw-redirect
Litster v Forth Dry Dock

values:
/wiki/Credit_Suisse_Ltd_v_Lister
mw-redirect
Credit Suisse Ltd v Lister

values: Spijkers v Gebroeders Benedik Abattoir CV

values:
/wiki/Oy_Liikenne_Ab_v_Liskoj%C3%A4rvi
mw-redirect
Oy Liikenne Ab v Liskojärvi

values:
/wiki/RCO_Support_Services_v_Unison
mw-redirect
RCO Support Services v Unison

values: Business transfers (page does not exist)

values: Nokes v Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd

values:
/wiki/TUPE_Regulations
mw-redirect
TUPE Regulations

values:
/wiki/Public_procurement
mw-redirect
Public procurement

values:
/wiki/Insolvency_Protection_Directive
mw-redirect
Insolvency Protection Directive

values: McMeechan v Secretary of State for Employment

values: Regeling v Bedrijfsverg de Metaalnijverheid

values: Mann v Secretary of State for Employment (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Robins_v_SS_for_Work_and_Pensions
mw-redirect
Robins v SS for Work and Pensions

values: Re Allders Department Stores Ltd (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Cork_Report
mw-redirect
Cork Report

values:
/wiki/Fixed_charge
mw-redirect
Fixed charge

values: float: right; clear: right; margin: 0.5em 0 0.8em 1.4em; width:27em; padding: 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa; font-size: 88%; background-color: #c6dbf7;

values: Protection of Workers' Claims (Employer's Insolvency) Convention

values: Royal Commission into the Operation of the Poor Laws 1832

values:
/wiki/Das_Kapital
mw-redirect
Das Kapital

values: Jobseekers Act 1995 (page does not exist)

values: Youth unemployment in the United Kingdom

values: Humphrey–Hawkins Full Employment Act of 1978

values:
/wiki/Automatic_stabiliser
mw-redirect
Automatic stabiliser

values:
/wiki/Fiscal_stimulus
mw-redirect
Fiscal stimulus

values:
/wiki/Public_employment_agency
mw-redirect
Public employment agency

values:
/wiki/Incapacity_benefit
mw-redirect
Incapacity benefit

values: Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013

values: Employment Tribunals (Increase of Maximum Deposit) Order (page does not exist)

values: Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Act 1998

values: Template talk:Clist global labour (page does not exist)

values: ILO Declaration of Fundamental Rights of 1998

values: Singapore Ministerial Declaration (page does not exist)

values: Procurement Regulation (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Brussels_I_Regulation
mw-redirect
Brussels I Regulation

values:
/wiki/Lawson_v_Serco_Ltd
mw-redirect
Lawson v Serco Ltd

values:
/wiki/Duncombe_v_Secretary_for_Children
mw-redirect
Duncombe v Secretary for Children

values:
/wiki/Ravat_v_Halliburton_Ltd
mw-redirect
Ravat v Halliburton Ltd

values:
/wiki/Posted_Workers_Directive
mw-redirect
Posted Workers Directive

values:
/wiki/Private_international_law
mw-redirect
Private international law

values:
/wiki/World_War_One
mw-redirect
World War One

values: Hours of Work (Industry) Convention, 1919

values: Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work

values: Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention

values: Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention

values: Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention

values:
/wiki/International_organisation
mw-redirect
International organisation

values: Labour standards in the World Trade Organisation

values: Dispute settlement in the World Trade Organization

values:
/wiki/European_School,_Karlsruhe
mw-redirect
European School, Karlsruhe

values:
/wiki/Labour_rights
mw-redirect
Labour rights

values:
/wiki/Conflicts_of_laws
mw-redirect
Conflicts of laws

values: Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd

values:
/wiki/Multinational_corporations
mw-redirect
Multinational corporations

values: International Transport Workers Federation

values:
/wiki/Penal_servitude
mw-redirect
Penal servitude

values: s:Constitution of the International Labour Office

values: Nairn v The University Court of the University of St Andrews (page does not exist)

values: Charter v Race Relations Board (page does not exist)

values: Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003

values: Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003

values: Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006

values: Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978

values: Employment Act 1988 (page does not exist)

values: Employment Act 1989 (page does not exist)

values: Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993

values:
/wiki/Malik_v_BCCI_SA
mw-redirect
Malik v BCCI SA

values:
/wiki/O_Kahn-Freund
mw-redirect
O Kahn-Freund

values: Stevenson, Jordan & Harrison v MacDonald & Evans

values: Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart NV v Slatford (page does not exist)

values: Airfix Footwear Ltd v Cope (page does not exist)

values: Massey v Crown Life Insurance Company (page does not exist)

values: Harlow v Artemis International Corp Ltd (page does not exist)

values: Alexander and Wall v Standard Telephones & Cables Ltd (No 2) (page does not exist)

values: Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd

values: Scally v Southern Health and Social Services Board

values: Crossley v Faithful & Gould Holdings Ltd

values: The Post Office v Roberts (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Transco_plc_v_O%E2%80%99Brien
mw-redirect
Transco plc v O’Brien

values: Mahmud and Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA

values: Bateman v Asda Stores Ltd (page does not exist)

values: Department for Transport v Sparks (page does not exist)

values: Equitable Life Assurance Society v Hyman

values: Wandsworth London Borough Council v D’Silva (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Franklin_v_South_Eastern_Railway
mw-redirect
Franklin v South Eastern Railway

values: Morris v Ford Motor Co Ltd (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Priestly_v_Fowler
mw-redirect
Priestly v Fowler

values: Woodley v Metropolitan District Railway Co (page does not exist)

values: Bowater v Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Rowley Regis (page does not exist)

values: Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945

values:
/wiki/Statute_of_Labourers
mw-redirect
Statute of Labourers

values: Miles v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council

values: Wiluszynski v London Borough of Tower Hamlets

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1820545

values: Trade Union Reform and Employment Relations Act 1993 (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/European_Social_Charter_1961
mw-redirect
European Social Charter 1961

values: European Community Charter of Fundamental Social Rights 1989 (page does not exist)

values: Leisure Employment Services Ltd v HM Revenue & Customs

values: Pulse Healthcare Ltd v Carewatch Care Services Ltd (page does not exist)

values: Borrer v Cardinal Security Ltd (page does not exist)

values: Holidays with Pay Convention (Revised), 1970

values:
/wiki/R_(BECTU)_v_DTI
mw-redirect
R (BECTU) v DTI

values: Schultz-Hoff v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund

values: SIMAP v Conselleria de Sanidad y Consumo de la Generalidad Valenciana

values: Boyle v Equal Opportunities Commission (page does not exist)

values: Imperial Group Pension Trust v Imperial Tobacco Ltd

values: Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group

values:
/wiki/Goode_Report
mw-redirect
Goode Report

values: Harries v The Church Commissioners for England

values: Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928

values: s:The History of Trade Unionism/Appendices and Index

values: Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948

values: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966

values: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966

values: Hilton v Eckersley (page does not exist)

values: s:Industrial Democracy/Part I Trade Union Structure

values: Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974

values: Brown v Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Lord_Hoffmann
mw-redirect
Lord Hoffmann

values: Bennett v National Amalgamated Society of Operative House and Ship Painters and Decorators (page does not exist)

values: Cotter v National Union of Seamen (page does not exist)

values: Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants v Osborne

values: Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1927

values: Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1946

values: Knowles v Fire Brigades Union (page does not exist)

values: Fullarton Computer Industries Ltd v Central Arbitration Committee

values: New Century Cleaning Co Ltd v Church (page does not exist)

values: RMT v Serco; ASLEF v London & Birmingham Railway (page does not exist)

values: Harrison v Kent County Council (page does not exist)

values: Gayle v Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust (page does not exist)

values: Lavigne v Ontario Public Service Employees Union

values: Certification of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Lord_Bramwell
mw-redirect
Lord Bramwell

values: London Underground Ltd v RMT (page does not exist)

values: Taff Vale Rly Co v Amalgamated Society of Rly Servants

values: South Wales Miners' Federation v Glamorgan Coal Co

values: Metrobus Ltd v Unite (page does not exist)

values: Timeplan Education Group Ltd v NUT (page does not exist)

values: Tarleton v McGawley (page does not exist)

values: Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875

values: A Manifesto for Labour Law: towards a comprehensive revision of workers’ rights (page does not exist)

values: Express Newspapers Ltd v Keys (page does not exist)

values: Mercury Communications Ltd v Scott-Garner (page does not exist)

values: University College London Hospitals NHS Trust v Unison (page does not exist)

values: Unison v United Kingdom (page does not exist)

values: National Sailors’ and Firemen’s Union v Reed (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/General_Strike
mw-redirect
General Strike

values: Express Newspapers ltd v MacShane (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/RMT_v_United_Kingdom
mw-redirect
RMT v United Kingdom

values: Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan

values: Duport Steel Ltd v Sirs (page does not exist)

values: POA v United Kingdom (page does not exist)

values: Hrvatski Liječnički sindikat v Croatia (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/ILO_Convention_No_87
mw-redirect
ILO Convention No 87

values: Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v NURMT (page does not exist)

values: EDF Energy Powerlink Ltd v NURMT (page does not exist)

values: British Airways Plc v Unite the Union (page does not exist)

values:
nofollow
external text
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2460685

values: R (BTP Tioxide) v Central Arbitration Committee (page does not exist)

values: Community Charter on the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers 1989

values: Association de médiation sociale v Union locale des syndicats CGT

values: Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 (page does not exist)

values: Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996 (page does not exist)

values: Information and Consultation of Employees Directive

values:
/wiki/Part-Time_Workers_Directive
mw-redirect
Part-Time Workers Directive

values: NLRB v Borg-Warner Corp (page does not exist)

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 356

values: Clark’s of Hove v Baker’s Union (page does not exist)

values: South Metropolitan Gas Act 1896 (page does not exist)

values: Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977

values:
/wiki/King%27s_College_London_Act_1997
mw-redirect
King's College London Act 1997

values: Report of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers’ Associations

values: Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Race_Equality_Directive
mw-redirect
Race Equality Directive

values:
/wiki/Wilson_v_United_Kingdom
mw-redirect
Wilson v United Kingdom

values:
/wiki/Mandla_v_Dowell_Lee
mw-redirect
Mandla v Dowell Lee

values: R (European Roma Rights Centre) v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport

values: Madarassy v Nomura International Plc (page does not exist)

values: Showboat Entertainment Centre v Owens (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Ladele_v_Islington_BC
mw-redirect
Ladele v Islington BC

values:
/wiki/Equal_Pay_Directive
mw-redirect
Equal Pay Directive

values:
/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_1963
mw-redirect
Equal Pay Act 1963

values:
/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_1964
mw-redirect
Civil Rights Act 1964

values: Rinner-Kühn v FWW Spezial-Gebaudereinigung GmbH & Co KG

values: Burton v De Vere Hotels Ltd (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Equality_Framework_Directive
mw-redirect
Equality Framework Directive

values: Johnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary

values: R (Amicus) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

values: Redcar and Cleveland BC v Bainbridge (page does not exist)

values: R (Carson and Reynolds) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

values: Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA

values: R (Age Concern (England)) v Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (page does not exist)

values: Equality Act 2010 (Disability) Regulations 2010 (page does not exist)

values: Employment Equity Act 1998 (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Part-time_Work_Directive
mw-redirect
Part-time Work Directive

values: Locke v Candy & Candy Ltd (page does not exist)

values: McClelland v Northern Ireland General Health Services

values: Payzu Ltd v Hannaford (page does not exist)

values: Power and Savage v British India Steam Navigation Co Ltd (page does not exist)

values: Nokes v Doncaster Collieries Ltd (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Gunton_v_Richmond-Upon_Thames_LBC
mw-redirect
Gunton v Richmond-Upon Thames LBC

values: Laws v London Chronicle (Indicator Newspapers) Ltd (page does not exist)

values: Jones v Gwent County Council (page does not exist)

values: Irani v Southampton and South West Hampshire HA (page does not exist)

values: Mezey v South West London & St George's Mental Health NHS Trust (page does not exist)

values: Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

values: Malloch v Aberdeen Corporation (page does not exist)

values: Woods v WM Car Services (Peterborough) Ltd

values: Logan Salton v Durham CC (page does not exist)

values: Work Constitution Act 1972 (page does not exist)

values: Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee

values: Orr v Milton Keynes Council (page does not exist)

values: Turner v East Midlands Trains Ltd (page does not exist)

values: Haddon v Van Den Bergh Foods Ltd (page does not exist)

values: West Midlands Co-op v Tipton (page does not exist)

values: Cartwright v King’s College, London (page does not exist)

values: British Fuels Ltd v Baxendale (page does not exist)

values: Credit Suisse First Boston (Europe) Ltd v Lister

values: Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Slater

values: Leeds United AFC Ltd (page does not exist)

values: Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy Amendment Act 1897

values: Buchan and Ivey v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

values: Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bottrill

values: Regeling v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid

values: Robins v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

values:
/wiki/Private_employment_agencies
mw-redirect
Private employment agencies

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values:
/wiki/M_Freedland
mw-redirect
M Freedland

values:
/wiki/History_of_Trade_Unionism
mw-redirect
History of Trade Unionism

values:
/wiki/KW_Wedderburn
mw-redirect
KW Wedderburn

values:
nofollow
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/
external text

values:
nofollow
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/
external text

values:
nofollow
http://www.worker-participation.eu/
external text

values: Labour law of Albania (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Andorra (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Armenia (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Austria (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Azerbaijan (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Belarus (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Belgium (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Bosnia and Herzegovina (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Bulgaria (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Croatia (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Cyprus (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of the Czech Republic (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Denmark (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Estonia (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Finland (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Labour_law_of_France
mw-redirect
Labour law of France

values: Labour law of Georgia (country) (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Labour_law_of_Germany
mw-redirect
Labour law of Germany

values: Labour law of Greece (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Hungary (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Iceland (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of the Republic of Ireland (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Italy (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Kazakhstan (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Latvia (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Liechtenstein (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Lithuania (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Luxembourg (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of the Republic of Macedonia (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Malta (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Moldova (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Monaco (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Montenegro (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of the Netherlands (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Norway (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Poland (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Portugal (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Romania (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Russia (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of San Marino (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Serbia (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Slovakia (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Slovenia (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Spain (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Sweden (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Switzerland (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Turkey (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Ukraine (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Labour_law_of_the_United_Kingdom
mw-redirect
Labour law of the United Kingdom

values: Labour law of Abkhazia (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of the Republic of Artsakh (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Kosovo (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Northern Cyprus (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of South Ossetia (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Transnistria (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Åland (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of the Faroe Islands (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Gibraltar (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Guernsey (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of the Isle of Man (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Jersey (page does not exist)

values: Labour law of Svalbard (page does not exist)

values: Template talk:Economy of the United Kingdom

values: Category:Employee-owned companies of the United Kingdom

values: Category:Government-owned companies of the United Kingdom

values:
/wiki/United_Kingdom_budget
mw-redirect
United Kingdom budget

values: Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

values: Economic geography of the United Kingdom

values: List of recessions in the United Kingdom

values:
/wiki/Economy_of_Croydon
mw-redirect
Economy of Croydon

values: List of ceremonial counties in England by gross value added

values: Category:Oil and gas industry in Scotland

values: List of renewable resources produced and traded by the United Kingdom

values: Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom

values: Financial services industry of the United Kingdom

values: International Financial Services District

values: List of newspapers in the United Kingdom by circulation

values: Aerospace industry in the United Kingdom

values: Automotive industry in the United Kingdom

values: Pharmaceutical industry in the United Kingdom

values: Construction industry of the United Kingdom

values: Affordability of housing in the United Kingdom

values: Science and technology in the United Kingdom

values: Telecommunications in the United Kingdom

values: List of supermarket chains in the United Kingdom

values: Structure of the rail industry in the United Kingdom

values: Category:Business organisations based in the United Kingdom

values: Category:Industry trade groups based in the United Kingdom

values: commons:Category:Economy of the United Kingdom

values: nowraplinks hlist collapsible collapsed navbox-inner

values:
navbox-image
4
width:1px;padding:0px 0px 0px 2px

values:
/wiki/English_trusts_law
mw-redirect
English trusts law

values:
/wiki/English_administrative_law
mw-redirect
English administrative law

values:
/wiki/Scots_criminal_law
mw-redirect
Scots criminal law

values:
/wiki/Scottish_family_law
mw-redirect
Scottish family law

values:
/wiki/Civil_Procedure_Rules_1998
mw-redirect
Civil Procedure Rules 1998

values: Category:Labour relations in the United Kingdom

values: Category:Webarchive template wayback links

values: Category:Use British English Oxford spelling from April 2017

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/United_Kingdom_labour_law
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values:
uls-settings-trigger
Language settings
0
button
true

values: قانون العمل في المملكة المتحدة – Arabic

values: Droit du travail au Royaume-Uni – French

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-United_Kingdom_labour_law rootpage-United_Kingdom_labour_law skin-vector action-view