Search results1 – 10 of over 30000
The issue of employment status lies at the heart of much conflict in the gig economy, with many gig economy workers effectively excluded from statutory employment…
The issue of employment status lies at the heart of much conflict in the gig economy, with many gig economy workers effectively excluded from statutory employment protection because of it. Establishing employment status continues to be the gateway to accessing most UK statutory employment rights, a fact which makes the exclusion of casual workers from much statutory protection seem arbitrary and unjust. Employment status has been historically determined by common law conceptions of the contract of employment. This creates particular difficulties for casual workers, who have typically had to prove a requirement to perform personal service and to show that the contract was based on mutual obligations in order to be recognised as employees. The advent of the gig economy has seen the concept of employment status evolve as courts and legislators have struggled to adapt to a more flexible labour market. Likewise, gig economy employers have gone to considerable lengths to try to circumvent the legal protections available to their workers. This chapter will examine the evolving role of common law doctrine in defining employment status and the emergence of the category of ‘worker’ as an definition of employment status for those who work in the gig economy. It will analyse prominent cases involving gig economy employers (such as Uber BV v Aslam) and explore how these cases have re-defined contractual doctrine. Finally, the chapter will analyse the Taylor Review (2017) and examine the viability of a conceptual uncoupling of statutory employment protection from contractual doctrine.
In this paper, the authors analyse a 2010 legal reform in the Czech Republic, which allowed retirees to simultaneously receive regular pension benefits and to work on a…
In this paper, the authors analyse a 2010 legal reform in the Czech Republic, which allowed retirees to simultaneously receive regular pension benefits and to work on a permanent contract for a period longer than one year. Previously, concurrence of employment and receipt of retirement benefits were only allowed in conjunction with a temporary work contract with a maximum duration of one year.
The authors employ the difference-in-differences method. The authors include only males in the analysis because it is not possible to identify the legal retirement age for women from available data. Men in the workforce 1–3 years prior to the statutory retirement age are in a control group, while men 1–3 years older are in a treatment group.
The authors show that the reform significantly increased the share of permanent contracts held by retirees (by 22.5–27.6 percentage points), though we do not find any aggregate short-term change in employment of retirees. Heterogeneity analysis shows a significant increase in the employment of retirees with only elementary school education (by 17.9 percentage points) and a significant decrease in the number of hours worked by retirees (by 2.5 h weekly for low-educated workers).
The policy conclusion is that the regulation of employment contract does not affect aggregate employment, but may improve employment of low skilled workers.
To the authors’ best knowledge, there are no studies directly analysing motivation of retirees by types of employment contracts. The authors, thus, add to the literature that studies dealing with the general fixed-term versus permanent contracts (Engellandt and Riphahn, 2003) and motivation to work.
In order to succeed in an action under the Equal Pay Act 1970, should the woman and the man be employed by the same employer on like work at the same time or would the woman still be covered by the Act if she were employed on like work in succession to the man? This is the question which had to be solved in Macarthys Ltd v. Smith. Unfortunately it was not. Their Lordships interpreted the relevant section in different ways and since Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome was also subject to different interpretations, the case has been referred to the European Court of Justice.
Phillips, J. has drawn the distinction between wrongful dismissal at common law and unfair dismissal under statute. He points out the considerable difference which exists between the position at common law and the position under statute. “The common law” he says “is concerned merely with the contractual relationship between the parties, whereas a complaint of unfair dismissal…is concerned with the statutory right of an employee not to be unfairly dismissed.” There thus exists a fundamental difference between the two concepts, both of which are in their different circumstances important. In this monograph, it is proposed to treat the common law of wrongful dismissal. Statutory unfair dismissal will be the subject of discussion in a future monograph.
Proposes to treat social law contracts by covering the two most important aspects of the contract of employment, and also the collective agreement. Covers the contract of employment in full with all the integral laws explained as required, including its characteristics, written particulars, sources or regulations, with regard to employers, are also covered. Lengthy coverage of the collective agreement is also included, showing legal as well as moral (!) requirements, also included are cases in law that are covered in depth.
The recent House of Lords decision in Carmichael v. National Power plc decided that a casual/zero‐hours worker was self‐employed and thus excluded from most of the basic…
The recent House of Lords decision in Carmichael v. National Power plc decided that a casual/zero‐hours worker was self‐employed and thus excluded from most of the basic employment statutory rights. The aims of this article are to note the incidence and characteristics of the casual workforce in the UK and EU; to explore the current legal framework applying to casual workers, including the decision and implications of Carmichael; to note recent and intended legal measures which have particular relevance for casual workers; to evaluate the likely effectiveness of those recent or proposed legal measures; and to consider possible alternative strategies to establish an appropriate framework for casuals.
The original legislation which introduced the redundancy payments scheme was the Redundancy Payments Act 1965. This was the first of the substantive statutory individual employment rights given to an employee; other individual employment rights, as for example, the right not to be unfairly dismissed, followed some years later. The Redundancy Payments Act 1965 has been repealed and the provisions on redundancy are now to be found in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.
In an article entitled “Collective Bargaining — a theoretical analysis” A. Flanders defined collective bargaining as an “…institution for the joint regulation of labour…
In an article entitled “Collective Bargaining — a theoretical analysis” A. Flanders defined collective bargaining as an “…institution for the joint regulation of labour management and labour markets.” The collective agreement, the result of the collective bargain, is normally an uninforceable contract and is a very different legal notion from that of the contract of employment. The function of the collective agreement is to regulate relations between the collective parties, that is between the employer's association or an individual employer, and a union or unions. Such relations are known as relations of a collective nature. They could include procedure agreements between the collective parties in relation to no‐strikes or other industrial action before the disputes procedure has been exhausted; matters to do with the structure of negotiations between the parties; the constitution of the bodies set up for collective bargaining purposes; procedures on re‐ negotiation of the collective agreement; and so on. The collective agreement has however another function, the individual function, which regulates relations between employer and employee. Terms and conditions of employment are usually regulated by the collective agreement. Thus pay scales, hours of work, holidays, wages during illness, overtime work, any matters relating to training, re‐training, apprenticeship, are some from among the numerous subjects to be found in conditions of employment. Procedures which relate to the individual employee, such as grievance and disciplinary procedures, may equally feature as part of the terms and conditions of employment which emanate from the collective agreement. Indeed statute requires that the employer gives his employee particulars of this latter's major terms and conditions of employment.
In the previous monograph, a discussion took place on what constitutes dismissal and when the termination of the contract of employment takes effect. These two aspects…
In the previous monograph, a discussion took place on what constitutes dismissal and when the termination of the contract of employment takes effect. These two aspects treat the first of the statutory qualifications necessary to enable the employee to exercise his right not to be unfairly dismissed, namely that he must first be dismissed.
Investigates the Polish Labour Code and how it has been updated to modern standards similar to those int he rest of Europe. States the Polish Labour code doctrine is for…
Investigates the Polish Labour Code and how it has been updated to modern standards similar to those int he rest of Europe. States the Polish Labour code doctrine is for maintaining the multiplicity of employment contracts, defined by the Labour Code in corresponding to various needs and interests of both employers and employees. Sets out four main conclusions in depth, which cover labour relations contracts in full and how they are perceived to affect the workers and bosses.