The Right to Request Flexible Working: Evidence from Employment Tribunal Judgments

IF 1 4区 社会学 Q3 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR Industrial Law Journal Pub Date : 2024-05-13 DOI:10.1093/indlaw/dwae016
Megan Pearson
{"title":"The Right to Request Flexible Working: Evidence from Employment Tribunal Judgments","authors":"Megan Pearson","doi":"10.1093/indlaw/dwae016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study examines five years of Employment Tribunal judgments on flexible working requests and uses a thematic analysis to identify the issues that have been litigated and to assess how employment tribunals, employees and employers have navigated the Act’s provisions. Whilst the right to request flexible working has been much critiqued because of its limited nature, there is little evidence and discussion of whether it provides a useable and effective process for employees and employers on its own terms. This article identifies three problems with the current legislation: employees can find it difficult to comply with the requirements for a valid statutory request, the difficulty of establishing and complying with the time limits in the legislation and finally the difficulty for tribunals in defining and applying core concepts relating to its power of review over employers’ decisions. These issues will not be resolved through the new Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023 and in some ways will be made more difficult.","PeriodicalId":45482,"journal":{"name":"Industrial Law Journal","volume":"207 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Industrial Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwae016","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study examines five years of Employment Tribunal judgments on flexible working requests and uses a thematic analysis to identify the issues that have been litigated and to assess how employment tribunals, employees and employers have navigated the Act’s provisions. Whilst the right to request flexible working has been much critiqued because of its limited nature, there is little evidence and discussion of whether it provides a useable and effective process for employees and employers on its own terms. This article identifies three problems with the current legislation: employees can find it difficult to comply with the requirements for a valid statutory request, the difficulty of establishing and complying with the time limits in the legislation and finally the difficulty for tribunals in defining and applying core concepts relating to its power of review over employers’ decisions. These issues will not be resolved through the new Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023 and in some ways will be made more difficult.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
要求弹性工作的权利:来自就业法庭判决的证据
本研究审查了五年来就业法庭对弹性工作要求的判决,并采用专题分析法来确定已提起诉讼的问题,以及评估就业法庭、雇员和雇主是如何驾驭该法案的规定的。虽然申请弹性工作制的权利因其有限性而备受批评,但对于该权利是否能为雇员和雇主提供一个可用且有效的程序,却鲜有证据和讨论。本文指出了现行法律存在的三个问题:雇员可能难以满足有效法定请求的要求;难以确定和遵守法律规定的时间限制;最后,法庭难以界定和应用与其审查雇主决定的权力有关的核心概念。这些问题不会通过新的《2023 年就业关系(灵活工作)法》得到解决,在某些方面还会变得更加困难。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
20.00%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: Industrial Law Journal is established as the leading periodical in its field, providing comment and in-depth analysis on a wide range of topics relating to employment law. It is essential reading for practising lawyers, academics, and lay industrial relations experts to keep abreast of newly enacted legislation and proposals for law reform. In addition Industrial Law Journal carries commentary on relevant government publications and reviews of books relating to labour law.
期刊最新文献
Less or More Labour Law for Social Change? Procurement and the ‘London Living Wage’: Boohene v Royal Parks Ltd Domino Dancing: Mutuality of Obligation and Determining Employment Status in Ireland The Problems and Paradoxes with the EU’s Regulation of Traineeships: A Way Forward ‘Fire and Rehire’: Four Lessons from Australia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1