Employment Law

IntroductionThis inform get let on outline key arguments surrounding contemporary turn overs on UK fight constabulary, which leave al cardinal provide a critical analysis from those that reason out in that respect is in like manner much regulation and those that suggest in that location is not enough. It is beyond the image of this invoice to generalise on troth law as a whole it testament hence focus on the right to petition flexile functional, much(prenominal) as under the handicraft Act 2002 and The proceed and Families Act 2006 that has been submit to various reforms, amendments and regulations. This principle has formed a hearty debate as to whether such(prenominal)(prenominal) interventions ensure that individuals achieve a ca-ca-life balance, get ahead efficient flirting(a) practice or create an unnecessary charge up on UK businesses (Chartered Institute of in-person Development (CIPD), 2005, British Chambers of commercialism (BCC), 2010). Thi s analysis will also look at the introduction of brisk custom formula for negotiable work, and discuss the impact on working practices today, with a glance toward the shape of new ordinance in the in store(predicate) (Chartered focussing Institute (CMI),2008).FindingsBackground and ContextThe last three decades conduct seen a manner toward plus utilization edict. At the corresponding magazine the United landed estate (UK) still has lower levels of employment protection and more wear down merchandise flexibility than other European states (Keter, 2010). The flexible market in the UK was genetical through the general laissez-faire attitude, where industrial labour and relation laws gain been slight state regulated than other European conceiveries (Biagi, 2000). Keter (2010) suggests that todays flexible market is also the resolving power of more recent trends, which from 1979 motto the introduction of more labour regulations in terms of statutes enacted, but wit h the prey of setting labour free of interference from state control and what was seen as unnecessary social partners, such as trade unions (ibid). The introduction of a sunrise(prenominal) comprehend administration however saw a tilt toward more family friendly employment principle. A European directive from 1997 (European Council Directives 97/81/EC and 98/81/EC) provided that part-time workers be authorize to the same rights as comparable to full-time employees. The directives expectd European member states to implement laws, regulations and provisions to eliminate discrimination against part-time workers. The aim was to allay the development of part-time and other working time understandings, that were flexible and met the necessarily of both employers and employees (Danzinger & Waters Boots, 2008).In order to promote citizens full confederacy in the labour market, the enactment of The battle Relations Act 1999, fleck continuing to ensure that labour relations were free of state control, provided a floor of rights, such as increased rights for fixed and part time workers, (Biagi, 2000). Along this trajectory, the Employment Act 2002 introduced legislation providing employees with young or modify children the right to petition flexible working arrangements by their employers, that was subsequently blanket(a) in The fashion and Families Act 2006 to allow the same rights for c atomic number 18rs of adults (Davies, 2011). Lewis and Campbell (2007) suggest that New Labours concern with promoting a work-life balance underpinned its ideologic approach to welfare, that saw active citizenship for all achieved principally through labour market participation (Levitas,2005). For all to participate, legislation has provided for the extension of child share function and maternity leave and the introduction of parental and paternity leave. Further, rather than minify working hours, the Labour g overnment promoted the right to request flexible working hours as a delegacy for families to manage their working patterns with their caring responsibility timetables (Busby and James, 2011).Hill et al (2001) describe flexible working to include activities such as part-time, job sharing and homeworking or any variation away(p) of working the traditional nine until five working day. For example, working from home, where such practices are facilitated due to advances in mobile technologies (Civicus, 2008). Lewis & Cooper (2005) debate that although in principle flexible working can take many forms, in reality, the main(prenominal) flexibility that UK employers offer is a reduction of working hours.From an employers perspective, employment legislation can also be seen as promoting the asylum of work patterns and arrangements in order to maximise employment productivity, customer joy and staff efficiency (Pettinger, 1998). This demand, Pettinger suggests, has come about as a result of the expansion of global markets, competition and ch oice, pressures on resources and increasing customer demands, unitedly with changing patterns of consumption (ibid). Therefore, Pettinger (1998) suggests that against this background, flexibility can be seen as a corporate attitude, whereby a fully flexible labour market is seen as generating a more orderive workforce.Faulkener (2001) argues that dapple it is recognised that it is the above drivers that bring forth influenced the development of flexible working practices, there is also another of import agenda. Here, Jones and Jones (2011) identify that family friendly legislation is more representative of the business wooing for flexible working legislation, which revolves around the identification of recruitment pools, pointly women, and the sr. population, who have yet to be fully exploited (Faulkener, 2001, Jones & Jones,2011).Arguments Against more Employment principleAccording to a British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) (2010) comprehend on employment regulation, a sur vey of British businesses see an rising consensus that the proliferation of legislation providing flexible working conditions has become increasingly problematic. The composing argues that the eluding from the regulation of collective bargaining to individual employment contracts, later evolving into the intensity level and complexity of statutory legislation today, has led to difficulties with pick uping and compliance (ibid). The accounting specifically attacks the piecemeal legislative approach to flexible working shown by the latest introduction of laws and regulations (see appendage 1) According to the BCC (2010), such an approach has been criticised by businesses. The problem for companies is that constant changes in the law mean that employers must come up the cost of familiarising themselves as each new law is enacted, where there is a greater risk of mistakes. As a result, businesses need to land their knowledge up to date since the previous change in the law, such as through employment law books and guides or paying for intelligent advice. Consequently, the work argues, employment legislation can act like a tax, by raising cost (ibid). The Department of Trade and attention (DTI) (2006) argue further that even if there is a belief that the increase of employment law can alter the flexibility of the labour market, there are still questions as to whether such legislation is fit for purpose. Against a backdrop of increasing employment legislation, a National Audit Office (2009) explore paper also casts doubt over whether brasss are able to understand business enough to design effective legislation. The BCC (2010), representing one hundred yard businesses, suggest that due to the volume and complexity of employment legislation, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), now need professional legal advice to settle disputes. In reality, the BCC argue, it is slight expensive to settle disputes with the employee and prevent rep utational damage than it is to defend a claim. The BCC therefore recommends streamlining and reducing the amount of legislation, for example, in a similar way that the anti-discrimination laws became consolidated by the Equality Act 2010 (ibid, 2010). Despite such criticisms, not all the fuck offings in the business sector are negative. According to a Chartered Institute of Personal Development (CIPD) Survey story (2005), who surveyed human race Resources professionals from over six hundred companies, the majority saw employment law as making a positive contribution to their businesses. This research suggested that the main barrier to effective implementation of employment law is the perception that there is too much employment legislation (ibid). In response, the Annual Employment natural law Review by the Department for Business conception and Skills (BIS) (2012) aims to face perceptions that there are too many employment laws, through lobbying for reform, while ensuring tha t reforms are not at the expense of compromising fairness for individuals. The report argues that although businesses complain about the amount of employment legislation, in reality the UK has one of the most lightly-regulated labour markets among developed countries. Only the United States and Canada have lighter overall employment regulation (OECD Indicators of Employment Protection, 2008 cit in BIS, 2012).Arguments in party favour of more Employment LegislationThe UKs light touch employment regulations may be reflected in their flexible working legislation. The right to request flexible working does not enforce employers to comply with individual requests, that to offer the procedures for them to do so. It is therefore argued that it is individuals (particularly with dependents) and the social organisations who support them, who favour increasing employment legislation, in order to provide fairness at work that ensures a work life balance (Burnett et al, 2012). In a 2012 rep ort by functional Families and One Plus One, Happy Homes and Productive works, from a sample of over two thousand respondents, nearly eighty pct of respondents felt that flexible working was the most serious working arrangement (Burnett et al, 2012). However, the report argued that in order to support flexible working, further legislation was needed in order to promote arrangements that are mutually beneficial and embedded as a culture of flexibility, rather than an approach that manages requests as an exception to the norm (ibid). Along with relationship and family support organisations, a growing number of business and HR associations support further employment legislation and reform to push forward the benefits of flexible working (CIPD, 2013). Drawing on the findings of the 2011 Workplace Employment Relations Study (WERS) the CIPD suggest that employment legislation needs to increase, due in part to a lack of effective mechanisms to tackle labour relations. The report points to recent socio-economic and political changes in the UK where an increase in employment law is becoming ever more essential. For example, the facilitation of employment legislation during the 1980s and 1990s discouraged union membership and bring down collective bargaining powers. This is reflected in the WERS study, in 2012, which shows rattling low levels of employee utilization in collective bargaining, only six percent in buck private businesses, with fourteen percent of employee trade union membership in the same sector (Wanrooy et al, 2011). The near absence of collective bargaining, although removing employer constraints on freedom of action, raises concerns over employee voice, where employment legislation may be seen as an attempt to keep out this gap (CIPD, 2012).Danzinger and Waters Boots (2008), argue that in reality flexible working legislation does not go far enough. junctions and parent advocacy groups argue that many workers who would benefit from flexible arr angements do not ask for them out of fear of being refused, or because of a fear that asking may jeopardise their careers. Research suggests that employees will only ask for flexible work if they believe their requests will be approved. It is also argued that flexible working legislation may reinforce gender inequalities by linking flexible work and care responsibilities, reinforcing a mother career track that pairs women with demotions of pay and position. Further, unfair kindling claims, involving refusal of flexible working, tend to favour women, who can rely on anti-discrimination legislation, such as in Adedeji v The City of London Corporation (2007) (see Appendix 2), in order to strengthen their claims (ibid).Future Changes to Flexible Working LegislationNew flexible working employment legislation to come into effect in 2014 appears to address some of the above criticisms. The government plans to extend the statutory right to request flexible working arrangements to all emplo yees (with over twenty-six weeks service) whether they are a carer or not. This removes the present requirement that the employee must have caring responsibilities. In addition, the procedure for makeing flexible working requests, which is really very prescriptive, will be relaxed and employers will instead be required to consider requests in a credible manner and within a reasonable time frame (ACAS, 2014).Currently, it is possible for an employee to claim compensation due to the employers failure to comply with the procedures laid down in the Flexible Working (Procedural Requirements) conventions 2002. In Bryan v Corporate Advertising Ltd ET/2105111/10, although the tribunal rejected Mrs Bryans claim that she was constructively dismissed and subjected to indirect sex discrimination, it was however held that the troupe had breached the procedures laid down by the 2002 Regulations. This procedural breach may no longer by relied upon under the 2014 legislation. However, successfu l claims may still be used under anti-discrimination legislation. In Commotion Ltd v Rutty 2006 IRLR 171 (EAT), it was upheld that the employee had been subject to constructive unfair dismissal and indirect sex discrimination, due to the employers failure to have any lawful reason to reject flexible working conditions. However, in Winfindale v Debenhams Retail plc (ET/2404134/10, 20 Aug 2010), it was held that there was no indirect sex discrimination where an employer showed that they took seriously a request to hark back from maternity leave on a part-time basis to a managers role. According to a Equality and Human Rights missionary work report (2009), proposed changes in flexible working legislation will address to fail to encourage workers in management positions to request flexible arrangements (EHRC, 2009). The report suggests that under current legislation, employees in management positions are less likely to make a request for flexible working, and when they do, they are l ess likely to succeed (ibid).In the governments Consultation on Modern Workplaces Report (2012), it is argued that current legislation that prioritises certain groups reinforces the idea that flexible working is only for those in caring roles, whereas the aim of the new legislation is to promote a culture where flexible working is a legitimize ambition for all employees (HM Government, 2009). Although the legislation proposes to allow but not require employers to prioritise competing requests, employers will continue to have to show that all competing requests cannot ceaselessly be accommodated, in their entirety, on business grounds (ibid).Drawing on the CIPD report (2005), a large majority of employers find compliance with the current legislation relatively straightforward. Of those who have had problems, the main barrier to compliance is that managers find it difficult to manage employees on different flexible working arrangements. abandoned that the new legislation attempts t o widen the right to request flexible working to all employees, employers may face an increased challenge to accommodate competing requests. However, jibe to the same report, since the introduction of the current legislation, less than one-tenth of employers have approach grievance or disciplinary proceedings, or an employment tribunal claim. Further, research shows that it is large multi-national companies that benefit most from flexible working arrangements. Among those benefits are improvements in staff retention, improved morale and a reduction in costs (CIPD, 2005). These reported benefits need to be balanced against arguments that oppose more legislation promoting flexible working (ibid).More significantly, the statutory provision to enable greater flexibility in the workplace looks set to increase in the future. In a recent report, Management Futures The creation in 2018 (2008), the findings predict that organisations will become more virtual, the premium for talent will increase, with new aspirations and ambitions of a multi-cultural, widely dispersed workforce (Chartered Management Institute (CMI),2008).ConclusionThis report has attempted to provide an insight into the contextual background surrounding employment laws in the UK today. The focus on flexible working legislation may be seen as a salient debate, given the competing claims from employers, employees and the organisations that support them (Burnett et al, 2012). At the same time, against a backdrop of socio-political and economic changes there has been an increasing legislative response to address both the rights of individual workers and a drive to improve competition, efficiency and development in the market (Pettinger, 1998). Given the predictions of further changes in the labour market, statutory provision looks set to increase in response. The debate for or against increasing legislation surrounding flexible working therefore needs to be balanced with the benefit to both businesses and the rights of individuals (CIPD, 2005).Word count 2644BibliographyAdvisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) (2014) Employment Law Update. operational online from http//www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=3909 Accessed on quaternary January 2014 Anderman, S.D (2000) Labour LawManagement Decisions and Workers Rights4th Edition. Oxford Oxford University Press British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) (2005) Employment Law Burden or BenefitBCC on tap(predicate) online from http//www.britishchambers.org.uk/ Accessed on 4th January 2014 British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) (2010) Employment Regulation Up to the JobMarch 2010. gettable online from http//www.thamesvalleychamber.co.uk Accessed on 4th January 2014 Biagi, M (2000) Job origination and Labour Law From Protection Towards Pro-action. The Hague Klvwar Law International Burnett, S Coleman, L, Houlston C, Reynolds, J (2012) Happy Homes and Productive Workplaces Summary Report of Research Findings. Available online from ht tp//www.oneplusone.org.uk Accessed on 4th January 2014 Busby, N & James, G (2011) Families, Care-giving and Paid Word Challenging Labour Law in the 21st Century. Cheltenham Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd Chartered Institute of Personal Development (CIPD) (2012) Flexible Working Provision and Uptake Survey Report. may 2012. Available online from http//www.cipd.co.uk/binaries/5790%20Flexible%20Working%20SR%20(WEB2).pdf Accessed on 4th January 2014 Chartered Management Institute (CMI) (2008) Management Futures The World in 2018. CMI. Available online from http//www.managers.org.uk-research-policy-published-reports Accessed on 4th January 2014 Civicus (2008) Strategic Directions 2008-2012 World Alliance for Citizen Participation Available online from http//civicus.org/downloads/SDConsultation/Annex%209%20-%202008-2012%20CIVICUS%20Strategic%20Directions.pdf Danzinger, A & Waters Boots, S (2008) Memo on the Impact of the United Kingdoms Flexible Working Act. Georgetown Georgetown University Law Centre Davies, A (2011) Employment Law and Workplace Law enchiridion Human Resources. Cambridge Workplace Law Group Ltd Department for Business Innovation and Skills (2012) Employment Law Review Annual Update 2012. Available online from http//www.gov.uk/government/uploads/government/publication Accessed on 4th January 2014 Department of Trade and Industry (dti) (2006) Employment Flexibility and UK Regional Unemployment Persistance and Micro-economic Shocks. Employment Relations Research serial publication No.65. Available online from http//www.berr.gov.uk/files/file36144.pdf Accessed on 4th January 2014 Equality and Human Rights Commission Report (2009) Flexible Working Policies A Comparative Review. Research Report 16. Available online from http//www.equalityandhumanrightscommission.com Faulkner, F. 2001 The technology question in feminism A view from womens liberationist technology studies, Womens Studies International Forum, Vol. 2, No.1, pg.79-95.Hill, E.J., Hawkins, A.J., Ferris, M. & Weitzman, M. 2001. Finding an Extra Day a Week The Positive Influence of Perceived Job Flexibility on Work and Family Life Balance Family Relations, 50(1) pg.49-58.HM Government (2012) Consultation on Modern Workplaces, Modern Workplaces Government Response on Flexible maternal Leave. November 2012. HM Government. Available online from https//www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-modern-workplaces/ Accessed on 4th January 2014 Honeyball, S (2008) Honeyball and Bowers textual matter on Employment Law10th Edition. OxfordOxford University Press James, G (2006) The Work and Families Act 2006 Legislation to improve choice and flexibilityIndustrial Law Journal. Vol35,issue 3 pp 272-278 Jones, K & Jones, E (2011) Flexible Working Practices in the UKGender and Management Perspectives. Women in Society, Vol 2 Autumn 2011Available online from http//www.newport.ac.uk/research/Journals/wis/vol2/Pages/default.aspx Accessed on 4th January 2014 Keter, V (2010) Issues in Employment Law Key Issues for the New Parliament 2010. House of commonalty Library Research, Social Reform. Available online from http//wwwParliament.uk/document/key%20issues%20in%employment. Accessed on 4th January 2014 National Audit Office (2009) Complying with Regulation Business Perceptions Survey 2009. Available online from http//www.nao.org.uk/publications/0809/complying_with_regulation.aspx Painter, R & Holmes,A (2008) Cases and Materials on Employment Law. Oxford Oxford University Press Pettinger (1998) Managing the Workforce. London Cassell Trade essence Congress (TUC) (2008) Changing Times Newsletter No.92 13th February 2008. Trade Union Congress. Available online from http//www.tuc.org.uk/welfare-andissues//changing-times-newsletter-no.92 Wanrooy,B, Bweley, H, Bryson,A, Forth,J, Freeth,S, Stokes, L, Wood,S (2011) The 2011 Employment Relations StudyFirst Finding. London The Workplace Employment Relations Study. Available online at http//www.gov.uk/13.1010.WERS-first -findings-report-third-edition Accessed on 4th January 2014