Search results

The Equal Pay Act 1970 (which came into operation on 29 December 1975) provides for an “equality clause” to be written into all contracts of employment. S.1(2) (a) of the 1970 Act (which has been amended by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975) provides:

Modern employment legislation invests the employee with important rights resulting in a greater degree of job security and improved legal protection in his employment. These rights or entitlements which are all personal in nature are divisible, for the sake of convenience, into four parts. Firstly, individual rights. These include guarantee payments, medical suspension, maternity, time off for specified activities, and the employer's insolvency. These rights are by no means exhaustive. Other rights of an individual nature as for example the right not to belong to a trade union where a closed shop is in operation; rights in connection with trade union membership; written reasons for dismissal; and so on, will be treated in the context of the discussion which will take place under the appropriate heading. Secondly, it is proposed to examine the employees right not to be discriminated against in employment on grounds of race and sex, thirdly, his right not to be unfairly dismissed will be analysed, to be followed finally by his right to redundancy payments. In this monograph, it is proposed to examine the first of these personal rights, namely the employee's individual rights. Each of the others will be discussed in subsequent monographs. It should be noted that unlike the common law terms implied into the contract of employment which consist of duties imposed on both the employer and the employee and which can be contracted out of by an express term in the contact of employment the statutory conditions of employment cannot be dispensed with in that manner. Like the implied terms at common law, the statutory conditions of employment too form another source of contract of employment though of course they are independent in that they neither form part of the contract of employment nor of the common law rights.

The article addresses the tension between Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and the right to work in times of the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, it explores the operation of corporations in adopting policies of mandatory vaccination and the role of the courts regarding these CSR patterns.

The article examines court case studies of CSR practices regarding unvaccinated employees during the COVID-19 pandemic in Israel and the United States.

The findings show that the Israeli system adopted the regulating for individual discretionary CSR approach, whereas the American system adopted the regulating for ethical-public CSR approach. Adopting the latter infringes upon the right to work of unvaccinated employees. While in Israel, the possibility of compelling employees to vaccinate is denied, in the American model, mandatory vaccination is possible. As opposed to the American model, in the Israeli model, there is an obligation to consider proportionate measures to isolate the employees while allowing them to continue working.

The article introduces two possible notions of regulating CSR in times of the pandemic – regulating for individual discretionary CSR which is labor-oriented and regulating for ethical-public CSR which is focused on public aspects. While the former posits that corporations should advance individual interests of employees and their right to work, the latter claims that corporations should advance the public interest in health. Following the problems resulting from the Israeli and American cases, the article draws on the lines for a suggested approach that courts should embrace.

Knight's Industrial Law Reports goes into a new style and format as Managerial Law This issue of KILR is restyled Managerial Law and it now appears on a continuous updating basis rather than as a monthly routine affair.

Work participation and work facilitation represent basic human rights for everyone. Work represents an important platform for welfare and well-being, but compared to the general workforce in Norway, persons with cognitive disabilities are severely under-represented. When workplaces locked down under the first COVID-19 outbreak spring 2020, some people were made redundant whilst many continued their work from home. The lockdown affected persons with cognitive disabilities through lockdown of workplaces, vocational training centres and even day activity centres. The scheme of working from home was not as obvious or facilitated for this group, as for other employees. When also visits were banned and common areas for socialisation were locked down, the consequences of these lockdowns were exacerbated. In this chapter we have examined and discussed the COVID-19 restrictions in Norway and how they affected the basic human rights of persons with cognitive disabilities, and also how such rights can be promoted through legislation, governance and service provision.

Biological understandings of mental illness are promoted by both anti-stigma campaigners and increasingly by activists protesting against social security cuts. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the pitfalls of the “illness” conceptualisation for reducing discrimination, comments on divisions between those arguing for a right to work and those who seek a right not to work, and proposes bridge building and more effective messages, drawing on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Review of relevant evidence on the effectiveness or lack of it of the “mental illness is an illness like any other” message in anti-stigma work, and discussion of grey literature from campaigners and bloggers.

There is a growing body of evidence that the “illness like any other” message entrenches rather than reduces stigma and discrimination: this message should not be used in anti-discrimination work. At the same time some social security bloggers and campaigners have argued they are “sick” in order to resist efforts to compel them to seek work or face sanctions; whilst older disability rights campaigners have argued for the right to work. The paper argues for new bridge building and use of evidence based messages in campaigning.

This paper is based on review of evidence on the impact of using the “illness” message to reduce stigma and discrimination; and on discussion of campaigns and blogs. It is not based on a systematic review of campaigns.

There is a need for campaigns that support rights holistically – the right to a decent standard of living and the right to work. This requires bridge building between activists, which could usefully be rooted in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The “illness” conceptualisation is harmful to the effort to reduce stigma and discrimination. Mental health staff can act as allies to those they serve in securing all these rights.

This is the only recent paper to analyse the evidence that the “illness like any other” message is harmful in anti-stigma work, together with its implications for the recent phenomenon of mental health campaigners moving from opposition to the medical model, to a new argument that they are “too sick” to work. This paper suggests ways forward for everyone with an interest in combatting stigma and discrimination.

The long-debated impact of right-to-work (RTW) laws took on more urgency with the passage of RTW in additional states in the twenty-first century. The impact of RTW on shareholder wealth of corporations located in four states is evaluated here: Oklahoma (2000), Indiana (2012), Michigan (2012), and Wisconsin (2015). Event study results show that RTW had a positive effect on shareholder wealth in these states, albeit an effect that was lower in Michigan than elsewhere. We argue that this is indirect evidence in support of research indicating that RTW hinders union organizing, raises profits, and reduces nonunion employee compensation.

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.

The object of this research is the reconstruction of the existing legal response by European Union states to the phenomenon of immigration. It seeks to analyse the process of conferral of protection.

One main dimension is selected and discussed: the case law of the national courts. The study focuses on the legal status of immigrants resulting from the intervention of these national courts.

The research shows that although the courts have conferred an increasing protection on immigrants, this has not challenged the fundamental principle of the sovereignty of the states to decide, according to their discretionary prerogatives, which immigrants are allowed to enter and stay in their territories. Notwithstanding the differences in the general constitutional and legal structures, the research also shows that the courts of the three countries considered – France, Germany and Spain – have progressively moved towards converging solutions in protecting immigrants.

The research contributes to a better understanding of the different legal orders analysed.

Turkey is required by the international and EU instruments and domestic law to address the issue of whistle-blowing and the protection of whistle-blowers. The purpose of this paper is to analyse Turkish legislation which is applicable to work-related whistle-blowing, the conflict between the worker’s right to “blow the whistle” and the obligation to loyalty and confidentiality. The consequences of groundless or deliberate false disclosures are considered. Comparisons are made with international conventions, the COE Recommendation CM/Rec(2014)7 and the Proposed EU Directive on the Protection of Whistleblowers and ECtHR precedents.

In the first part, this paper reviews the definition of whistle-blowing and whistle-blower. The second part outlines the impact of international and EU Law on Turkish legislation. The third part reviews the Turkish legal framework applicable to whistle-blowing.

Whistle-blowing in the public interest is suggested as a tool to combat corruption worldwide. There is no doubt that some whistle-blowers have been beneficial to society. However without democratic structures to take into account the assessment of the quality of the information, the type of the disclosure and the category of the reporting person, there are downsides to excessive whistle-blowing. Therefore, whistle-blowing should be discussed in the context of democratic societies, and a balanced approach should be adopted to ensure the position of not only whistle-blowers but also the people affected by the reports.

The paper offers new insights into the limits of work-related whistle-blowing within the context of freedom of expression and the right of employees and public officials to petition. The protection of whistle-blowers and the consequences of groundless or deliberate false disclosures under Turkish Law from a comparative perspective are considered.