Nevada Gambling Law

Often business transfers take place when a company has plunged into an insolvency procedure. The petition must state, clearly and concisely:. Change of circumstance Section There's nothing to attach or mail, not even your Forms W Your filing status may be single if you were widowed before January 1, , and didn't remarry before the end of They are entitled to such leaves of absence as the Board prescribes, but such leaves must not be of lesser duration than those provided for other state employees pursuant to chapter of NRS.

Top Business Stories

Search Legislation

Password at least 6 characters required. We take your privacy seriously. As detailed in our Privacy Policy we will use your personal information to administer your account and provide the products and services that you have requested from us.

We use cookies on this site to enable your digital experience. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our cookie policy.

Make sure you don't miss any Law breaking news. Download our plug-in for Chrome to get customizable, real-time news alerts. We have a pool and a pond A former greenskeeper, now, about to become the Masters champion. It looks like a mirac Check out Law's new podcast, Pro Say, which offers a weekly recap of both the biggest stories and hidden gems from the world of law.

Listen To Our Latest. 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 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 under the Combination Act The Master and Servant Act 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 and the Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act trade unions were legitimised. 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 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 , 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 provided pensions for retirees. The Trade Boards Act created industrial panels to fix minimum wages and the National Insurance Act levied a fee to insure people got benefits in the event of unemployment.

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 gave universal suffrage to men over age 21 and women over 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 in pronouncing that "labour should not be regarded merely as a commodity or an article of commerce".

Within the UK the postwar settlement was to make a home fit for heroes. Whitley Councils extended the Trade Boards Act 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.

The s and s were economically volatile. In 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 and , 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 s 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 , [25] gender in , disability in , sexual orientation and religion in and age in Much discrimination law is now applicable throughout the European Union, to which the UK acceded in 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 , workers gained a growing list of minimum statutory rights, such as the right to reasonable notice before a fair dismissal and a redundancy payment.

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 and created more direct workplace participation, reform did not take place. From , a new Conservative government took a strongly sceptical policy to all forms of labour law and regulation.

During the s ten major Acts gradually reduced the autonomy of trade unions and the legality of industrial action. 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.

Domestic led reform was minimal. The National Minimum Wage Act established a country-wide minimum wage, but did not attempt to reinvigorate the Wage Board system. The Employment Relations Act introduced a 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.

UK labour law's primary concern, particularly under the Employment Rights Act , is to ensure that every working person has a minimum charter of rights in their workplace. 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".

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. 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 dominant view of this, now approved by the UK Supreme Court, [45] was merely that workers exchanged work for a wage: However, the leading case, Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher decided by a unanimous Supreme Court in , 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]. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

Today, in practice, this leaves the employer with the ability to vary the way work is done in accordance with business need. 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 , 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 spread to all "factories": Because individual employees tend not to litigate, to ensure enforcement, there are inspectors under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act , 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 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. 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 to statutory sick pay. They can claim for the injury itself, loss of income, and relatives or dependents may recover small sums to reflect distress.

Insurance companies may not their employee to recover costs unless there is fraud. First, until , 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. Lord Wright held there were "fundamental obligations of a contract of employment The second old restriction was that, until , volenti non fit injuria meant workers were assumed to voluntarily accept the dangers of their work by agreeing to their contracts of employment.

Third, even if a worker was slightly at fault, until 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. 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 section 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.

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 section 3 to reverse the decision on its facts.

It has also been held in Chandler v Cape plc , [90] in , 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. Since , 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.

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 But this system was eroded through the s and eventually repealed in To bring the UK back into compliance with basic standards in international law , [98] the National Minimum Wage Act 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. Total pay received is divided by the hours actually worked over an average "pay reference period" of one month. 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. In Walton v Independent Living Organisation Ltd [] 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.

The Working Time Regulations set limits on working time, and implement the basic requirements of the Working Time Directive. 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. Where a person works at night, he or she may only do 8 hours in any hour period on average, or simply 8 hours at most if the work is classified as "hazardous".

The labour movement has always bargained for a shorter working week as it increased economic productivity: 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. If the worker has not "opted out", then the hour week is not a rigid maximum, but is taken as an average over 17 weeks.

The European Court of Justice 's decision in Landeshauptstadt Kiel v Jaegar [] 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.

Possibly the most important time off during working life will be to care for newly born or adopted children. They are also less favourable for male parents, which affects gender equality. First, women must take two weeks compulsory leave at the time of child birth. 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.

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.

The Paternity and Adoption Leave Regulations entitle a father to 2 weeks leave, at the statutory rate of pay. 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. In further specific situations, there are a jumble of other rights to leave spread across the ERA sections 55 to 80I. After EA , 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 The right to make the request is contained in ERA 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, [] and within 8 grounds listed in section 80G, which generally concern business and organisational necessity.

In Commotion Ltd v Rutty [] 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.

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. Traditionally, these came from a collective agreement , or from an employer setting one up. 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. This is particularly important for people who do not created a union and collective bargained for an occupational pension.

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.

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 Robert Maxwell scandal. The Insolvency Act also requires that outstanding pension contributions are a preferential over creditors, except those with fixed security.

The Pensions Regulator is the non-departmental body which is meant to oversee these standards, and compliance with trustee duties, [] which cannot be excluded. In addition, there exists a Pensions Ombudsman who may hear complaints and take informal action against employers who fall short of their statutory duties. 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. 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, [] an official trade union has been protected by law in its right to strike.

In these respects UK law is considered by some to have fallen below international labour standards. 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.

In principle, UK law guarantees trade unions and their members freedom of association. 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.

The Trade Union Act aimed to keep the courts away from unions' internal affairs, while the Trade Disputes Act 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 when the Conservative government attempted comprehensive regulation. 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 Before , all unions had systems of elections and were democratic.

In most the members elected union executives directly. 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. Minor procedural irregularities that would not affect outcomes do not undermine an election, [] 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.

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 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 , [] 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. 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.

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: 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.

Records are kept for six years, members have a right to inspect them, they are independently audited and overseen by the Certification Officer.

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, [] particularly compared to funding by employers through control of corporations. Unions must also have political objects in the constitution. 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 [] 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 [] 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 section 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. 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.

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 , [] by the European Convention on Human Rights article 11 , [] and in international law. This began to change from , 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. 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.

Third, the union must identify an appropriate "bargaining unit" for a collective agreement, which a government body named the Central Arbitration Committee CAC [] can verify and approve.

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. 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 sections 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, [] with the same strictness as other anti-discrimination laws. For example, in Fitzpatrick v British Railways Board [] the Board dismissed of a lady who had been a member of a Trotskyist group which promoted international socialism.

Woolf LJ held that this was not the true reason - Trotskyism was the issue. The dismissal was unlawful under section Given the technicality of the legislation, the most important case is Wilson and Palmer v United Kingdom , [] 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.

More specific legislation, with the Data Protection Act sections and the Employment Relations Act Blacklists Regulations , penalises a practice of recording or blacklisting union members, and potentially leads to criminal sanctions for employers and agencies who do so. Third, union members have a right to be represented by union officials in any disciplinary or grievance meeting under Employment Relations Act sections 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.

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 that "freedom of association" under article 11 also entailed "freedom from association".

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. 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. 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.

However, the scope of the right to take collective action has been controversial. Reflecting a series of restrictions from to , the law was partially codified in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act sections to , which now falls below 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", [] that "right of workmen to strike is an essential element in the principle of collective bargaining ", [] "that workmen have a right to strike", [] and that this is "a fundamental human right".

On the other hand, differently composed courts have asserted that the common law position sits at odds with international law: Economic torts have been said to include conspiracy to injure , [] inducement of breach of contract , [] and tortious interference with a contract. 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.

First, the meaning of a "trade dispute" under TULRCA section is confined to mean a dispute "between workers and their employer" and must mainly relate to employment terms.

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 , [] or privatisation, [] or outsourcing before it happens, [] have been held unlawful.

However, at the least, any dispute over the terms or conditions on which workers do their jobs will allow protection. Third, under TULRCA section a union wishing to take collective action for a trade dispute must conduct a ballot. 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.

The economic benefit is that directors or decision-makers who inform and consult staff on important workplace changes e. The Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act sections 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". First, the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations , [] 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.

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: Occasionally, there could be a "pre-existing" council, or procedure in writing, covering all employees.

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. Second, the Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations enable unified work councils in multinational enterprises, operating in the EU.

This is most likely for US multinational enterprises. Management can initiate a work council, or employees in at least two undertakings and member states can make a request. If agreement cannot be reached, a template set of "subsidiary requirements" will form the work council's constitution. Third, the Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act section requires employers, who are "contemplating" redundancies of 20 employees, in an "establishment" over 90 days, to consult for 30 days with the workforce.

Direct participation rights in UK corporations and other forms of enterprise have a long history in specific sectors. Since the turn of the 20th century Acts such as the Port of London Act , Iron and Steel Act , or the Post Office Act 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.

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. The Companies Act section defines only "members" as those with participation rights. Under section 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. 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. In the Report of the committee of inquiry on industrial democracy [] the Government proposed, in line with the new German Codetermination Act , 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 election. 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. Another form of direct participation rights is for employees to exercise voting rights over specific workplace issues. The primary example is the Pensions Act sections 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.

The Equality Act 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, [] and EU law , [] 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.

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.

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.

Even if employers have "positive" motives, for instance to help underprivileged groups, discrimination is still unlawful in principle.

For instance in Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [] 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.

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. 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.

Even though he was married with children, he successfully claimed discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. 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: 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, [] 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 [] 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.

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. Between and , 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. A significant exception to the basic framework for indirect discrimination is found for the issue of equal pay between men and women. 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. Third, under EA 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 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.

Originally a sub-category of direct discrimination, harassment is now an independent tort which requires no comparator. The Protection from Harassment Act , and now the Equality Act 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. 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 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. 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 , [] 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. 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 Schedule 9, [] 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 [] 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. In an action for judicial review of the legislation, [] 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. 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. 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 section 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 [] 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.

Thus, the "objective justification" was said to be an organisational necessity. 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 [] 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, [] and can even result in liability for the union that concluded them. 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.

This includes all varieties of mental and physical disabilities. Under the Equality Act 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 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 , [] 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 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.

The aim is always to ensure that disabilities are not a barrier to full participation in working life, as much as possible. 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. 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.

A male candidate, who was not hired over two less qualified women, was successful in claiming discrimination. This approach, developed initially in ECJ case law, is now reflected in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union article 4 and was put into UK law in the Equality Act sections Beyond the Equality Act three EU Directives, [] 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 [] 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 , [] 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.

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. The Fixed-Term Employees Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment Regulations [] 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". 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.

The Agency Workers Regulations 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.

This left uncertain the position of agency workers protection by the job security, child care and other rights for employees in ERA Found in the Employment Agencies Act and the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations [] 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 removed the licensing requirement, but this was partially reinstated for agencies in agricultural, shellfish and packing sectors through the Gangmasters Licensing Act In response to the Morecambe Bay cockling disaster this established another specific regulator, the Gangmasters Licensing Authority , to enforce employment law in those areas.

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.

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. Second, after two years' work, the dismissal must be fair. 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. 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. 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 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

Help Menu Mobile