On 4 October 2023, the ‘long-anticipated’ judgment in PCC v Agnew was handed down by the Supreme Court. This case concerned claims for holiday pay made by police officers and other civilian staff employed by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). The Supreme Court had to decide two main issues. The first was whether police officers could take advantage of the more generous remedy provisions in respect of holiday pay claims in the Employment Rights Order 1996 (ERO) (which largely corresponds to the UK Employment Rights Act 1996) as opposed to the Working Time Regulations. The second issue was the correct interpretation of the ERO provisions. As well as the important practical implications of the case, there are also interesting jurisprudential issues that arise. The case deals with the interpretation of European Union (EU) derived rights in the labour context. This is a sensitive area, given that access to EU interpretive mechanisms usually equates to a more progressive reading of rights, and this fans the flame of UK government scepticism to both the EU and working time rights. This article discusses the particular approach to statutory interpretation taken by the Supreme Court and the implications of this approach for the progressive interpretation of EU-derived employment rights going forward.
{"title":"Working Time Remedies Beyond Brexit: Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and Another v Agnew and Others","authors":"Lisa Rodgers, Oxana Golynker","doi":"10.1093/indlaw/dwae007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwae007","url":null,"abstract":"On 4 October 2023, the ‘long-anticipated’ judgment in PCC v Agnew was handed down by the Supreme Court. This case concerned claims for holiday pay made by police officers and other civilian staff employed by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). The Supreme Court had to decide two main issues. The first was whether police officers could take advantage of the more generous remedy provisions in respect of holiday pay claims in the Employment Rights Order 1996 (ERO) (which largely corresponds to the UK Employment Rights Act 1996) as opposed to the Working Time Regulations. The second issue was the correct interpretation of the ERO provisions. As well as the important practical implications of the case, there are also interesting jurisprudential issues that arise. The case deals with the interpretation of European Union (EU) derived rights in the labour context. This is a sensitive area, given that access to EU interpretive mechanisms usually equates to a more progressive reading of rights, and this fans the flame of UK government scepticism to both the EU and working time rights. This article discusses the particular approach to statutory interpretation taken by the Supreme Court and the implications of this approach for the progressive interpretation of EU-derived employment rights going forward.","PeriodicalId":45482,"journal":{"name":"Industrial Law Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140935915","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article seeks to probe the controversial relationship between seeking asylum and the permission (or obligation) to work. In doing so, we recognise the concurrent claims that can be made for asylum and access to the labour market, problematising the concept of ‘work’ and its relationship to freedom and dignity from the perspective of international refugee law and European human rights norms alongside European Union (EU) law. We examine how British and Swedish legal systems have reflected two starkly opposed policy stances. The UK has long denied asylum seekers the financial and psychological benefits that come with work usually until refugee status is formally granted, but the Swedish system has facilitated a complementary pathway for asylum seekers whose labour can make (what is determined politically to be) a sufficient contribution to the economy. We identify the perceived benefits and failings of each strategy. In this context, we observe that the status quo in both countries is changing and even arguably converging around an illiberal consensus regarding the relationship between asylum and work, which will demand further attention and potentially legal challenges in the years to come.
{"title":"Access to Work for Those Seeking Asylum: Concerns Arising from British and Swedish Legal Strategies","authors":"Petra Herzfeld Olsson, Tonia Novitz","doi":"10.1093/indlaw/dwae004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwae004","url":null,"abstract":"This article seeks to probe the controversial relationship between seeking asylum and the permission (or obligation) to work. In doing so, we recognise the concurrent claims that can be made for asylum and access to the labour market, problematising the concept of ‘work’ and its relationship to freedom and dignity from the perspective of international refugee law and European human rights norms alongside European Union (EU) law. We examine how British and Swedish legal systems have reflected two starkly opposed policy stances. The UK has long denied asylum seekers the financial and psychological benefits that come with work usually until refugee status is formally granted, but the Swedish system has facilitated a complementary pathway for asylum seekers whose labour can make (what is determined politically to be) a sufficient contribution to the economy. We identify the perceived benefits and failings of each strategy. In this context, we observe that the status quo in both countries is changing and even arguably converging around an illiberal consensus regarding the relationship between asylum and work, which will demand further attention and potentially legal challenges in the years to come.","PeriodicalId":45482,"journal":{"name":"Industrial Law Journal","volume":"55 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140117071","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This case note reviews the detail of, rationale for, and issues arising in relation to the longstanding principle that in general terms an employee cannot simultaneously have two employers in the context of its impact on the scope and application of labour law protections and its recent consdieration by the Employment Tribunal in its Embery and United Taxis decisions. It is argued that this principle is ripe for recosndieraitona nd restatement, not leasst in the light of the arguments in favour of the adoption of a joint employment model in order, where appropriate, to ensure the effective application of labour standards.
本案例说明回顾了雇员一般不能同时拥有两个雇主这一由来已久的原则的细节、基本原理和相关问题，并结合该原则对劳动法保护范围和适用的影响以及就业法庭最近在其 Embery 和 United Taxis 判决中对该原则的支持进行了分析。有观点认为，这一原则已经到了重新考虑和重述的时候了，尤其是考虑到有观点赞成采用联合雇佣模式，以酌情确保劳动标准的有效实施。
{"title":"One Man, Two Guvnors: Revisiting the Principle Against Two Employers","authors":"Charles Wynn-Evans","doi":"10.1093/indlaw/dwae001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwae001","url":null,"abstract":"This case note reviews the detail of, rationale for, and issues arising in relation to the longstanding principle that in general terms an employee cannot simultaneously have two employers in the context of its impact on the scope and application of labour law protections and its recent consdieration by the Employment Tribunal in its Embery and United Taxis decisions. It is argued that this principle is ripe for recosndieraitona nd restatement, not leasst in the light of the arguments in favour of the adoption of a joint employment model in order, where appropriate, to ensure the effective application of labour standards.","PeriodicalId":45482,"journal":{"name":"Industrial Law Journal","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139921500","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article argues there is no one-size-fits-all approach to the role of consent to labour exploitation. However, there is significant value in considering the theoretical underpinnings of different legal interventions addressing labour exploitation. The article first explores different theoretical accounts of exploitation in political philosophy: emphasising taking unfair advantage, violation of dignity or coercion. Following the theoretical analysis, the article maps the different legal interventions in labour law, criminal law and public law. It suggests that the starting point of analysing consent to labour exploitation—fairness, dignity, individual coercion, structural coercion and consent—determines the result of the analysis. This section demonstrates the connection between different areas of law and different theoretical approaches to the role of consent to labour exploitation. The different approaches are then applied to examples based on real-world cases. The article concludes that in the context of labour exploitation, consent is a necessary but insufficient condition for the legitimacy and legality of the labour relations. The fairness of the result and protecting workers’ dignity should also be considered.
{"title":"Consent to Labour Exploitation","authors":"Maayan Niezna","doi":"10.1093/indlaw/dwad036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwad036","url":null,"abstract":"This article argues there is no one-size-fits-all approach to the role of consent to labour exploitation. However, there is significant value in considering the theoretical underpinnings of different legal interventions addressing labour exploitation. The article first explores different theoretical accounts of exploitation in political philosophy: emphasising taking unfair advantage, violation of dignity or coercion. Following the theoretical analysis, the article maps the different legal interventions in labour law, criminal law and public law. It suggests that the starting point of analysing consent to labour exploitation—fairness, dignity, individual coercion, structural coercion and consent—determines the result of the analysis. This section demonstrates the connection between different areas of law and different theoretical approaches to the role of consent to labour exploitation. The different approaches are then applied to examples based on real-world cases. The article concludes that in the context of labour exploitation, consent is a necessary but insufficient condition for the legitimacy and legality of the labour relations. The fairness of the result and protecting workers’ dignity should also be considered.","PeriodicalId":45482,"journal":{"name":"Industrial Law Journal","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139678253","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
South Korea and Thailand are two of the seven biggest destination countries for low-wage migrant labour in East and Southeast Asia. They face similar demographic patterns and labour market dynamics but are very different when it comes to their economic, political and geographical contexts. Despite these differences, they have pursued a similar approach to the regulation of low-wage labour migration by taking a more active role in managing the recruitment and stay of migrant workers. As a result, outcomes for low-wage migrant workers in both countries are better than those experienced by their counterparts elsewhere in Asia. This analysis of the low-wage visa schemes in South Korea and Thailand contributes to a more robust understanding of how these restrictive labour migration regimes can be structured to improve outcomes for workers. The paper argues that lessons learned from the regulatory approaches pursued in South Korea and Thailand should be applied in other destination countries in Asia and beyond.
{"title":"Reducing Worker Exploitation in Time-Limited, Low-Wage Visa Schemes: Lessons from South Korea and Thailand","authors":"Arwen Joyce","doi":"10.1093/indlaw/dwad035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwad035","url":null,"abstract":"South Korea and Thailand are two of the seven biggest destination countries for low-wage migrant labour in East and Southeast Asia. They face similar demographic patterns and labour market dynamics but are very different when it comes to their economic, political and geographical contexts. Despite these differences, they have pursued a similar approach to the regulation of low-wage labour migration by taking a more active role in managing the recruitment and stay of migrant workers. As a result, outcomes for low-wage migrant workers in both countries are better than those experienced by their counterparts elsewhere in Asia. This analysis of the low-wage visa schemes in South Korea and Thailand contributes to a more robust understanding of how these restrictive labour migration regimes can be structured to improve outcomes for workers. The paper argues that lessons learned from the regulatory approaches pursued in South Korea and Thailand should be applied in other destination countries in Asia and beyond.","PeriodicalId":45482,"journal":{"name":"Industrial Law Journal","volume":"60 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139515742","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Decent Work in the Digital Age: European and Comparative Perspectives","authors":"Ou Lin","doi":"10.1093/indlaw/dwad032","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwad032","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45482,"journal":{"name":"Industrial Law Journal","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138585585","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"A New Approach to Australia’s Sex Discrimination and Labour Laws is Designed to Improve Equality for Women at Work","authors":"Dominique Allen","doi":"10.1093/indlaw/dwad027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwad027","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45482,"journal":{"name":"Industrial Law Journal","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139198052","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Journal Article J.K. v TP S.A. and the ‘Universal’ Scope of EU Anti-Discrimination Law at Work: A Paradigm Shift? Get access Antonio Aloisi Antonio Aloisi IE Law School, IE University, Madrid, Spain antonio.aloisi@ie.edu Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Industrial Law Journal, dwad025, https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwad025 Published: 05 October 2023 Article history Accepted: 07 September 2023 Published: 05 October 2023
J.K. v . TP S.A.和欧盟反歧视法在工作中的“普遍”范围:范式转变?访问安东尼奥·阿洛伊西安东尼奥·阿洛伊西IE法学院，西班牙马德里IE大学antonio.aloisi@ie.edu搜索作者的其他作品:牛津学术谷歌学者工业法杂志，wad025, https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwad025出版日期:2023年10月05日文章历史接受日期:2023年9月07日出版日期:2023年10月05日
{"title":"<i>J.K. v TP S.A.</i> and the ‘Universal’ Scope of EU Anti-Discrimination Law at Work: A Paradigm Shift?","authors":"Antonio Aloisi","doi":"10.1093/indlaw/dwad025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwad025","url":null,"abstract":"Journal Article J.K. v TP S.A. and the ‘Universal’ Scope of EU Anti-Discrimination Law at Work: A Paradigm Shift? Get access Antonio Aloisi Antonio Aloisi IE Law School, IE University, Madrid, Spain antonio.aloisi@ie.edu Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Industrial Law Journal, dwad025, https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwad025 Published: 05 October 2023 Article history Accepted: 07 September 2023 Published: 05 October 2023","PeriodicalId":45482,"journal":{"name":"Industrial Law Journal","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135483060","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Correction to: Subordination Theory in Practice: An Empirical Analysis of Chinese Courts’ Approaches to Classifying Labour Relationships in Platform Cases","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/indlaw/dwad026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwad026","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45482,"journal":{"name":"Industrial Law Journal","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135771151","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The introduction of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) and the Human Rights Act were intended to establish an equality and human rights culture within public authorities. However, so far this culture has failed to take hold. Both utilise an enforcement pyramid model of regulation, where penalties increasingly progress until non-compliers comply. Using original empirical data this article explores the implementation of equality and human rights law within public authorities via semi-structured interviews. It finds three different implementation profiles: strong implementation (where individuals make the most of the resources they have and drive ever deeper implementation), mixed implementation (where individuals oscillate between deeper and perfunctory implementation), and weak implementation (where individuals avoid taking meaningful action due to feeling overwhelmed and in need of rescue). On the basis of these behaviours, it is argued that an alternative strength-based model of regulation is needed to supplement the enforcement pyramid and truly establish an equality and human rights culture within public authorities.
{"title":"Implementation Behaviours and a Strength-Based Approach to Equality and Human Rights Implementation","authors":"David Barrett","doi":"10.1093/indlaw/dwad020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwad020","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The introduction of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) and the Human Rights Act were intended to establish an equality and human rights culture within public authorities. However, so far this culture has failed to take hold. Both utilise an enforcement pyramid model of regulation, where penalties increasingly progress until non-compliers comply. Using original empirical data this article explores the implementation of equality and human rights law within public authorities via semi-structured interviews. It finds three different implementation profiles: strong implementation (where individuals make the most of the resources they have and drive ever deeper implementation), mixed implementation (where individuals oscillate between deeper and perfunctory implementation), and weak implementation (where individuals avoid taking meaningful action due to feeling overwhelmed and in need of rescue). On the basis of these behaviours, it is argued that an alternative strength-based model of regulation is needed to supplement the enforcement pyramid and truly establish an equality and human rights culture within public authorities.","PeriodicalId":45482,"journal":{"name":"Industrial Law Journal","volume":"62 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135060554","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：