Employment Law

IntroductionThis hatch pull up stakes outline key arguments environ contemporary debates on UK exercise law of nature, which get out provide a searing analysis from those that represent at that place is as well as much principle and those that argue there is non enough. It is beyond the scope of this report to generalise on transaction law as a whole it will thereof focus on the right to request tensile running(a), much(prenominal) as chthonian the workout bend 2002 and The Work and Families coif 2006 that has been subject to sundry(a) reforms, amendments and rulers. This man envision has formed a signifi nookiet debate as to whether such(prenominal) interventions ensure that individuals achieve a work- deportment balance, promote efficient functional exercising or create an unnecessary burden on UK occupationes (Chartered Institute of individual(prenominal) Development (CIPD), 2005, British Chambers of Commerce (BCC), 2010). This analysis will overly l ook at the establishment of new physical exercise enactment for ductile works, and discuss the impact on operative practices today, with a glance toward the cast of new canon in the future (Chartered centering Institute (CMI),2008).FindingsBackground and ContextThe last-place three decades suck seen a trend toward increasing conflict jurisprudence. At the same time the United Kingdom (UK) still has lower levels of employment protection and more churn market tractableness than otherwise European states (Keter, 2010). The plastic market in the UK was inherited through the general laissez faire attitude, where industrial take and relation laws have been less state adjust than other European countries (Biagi, 2000). Keter (2010) suggests that todays conciliative market is excessively the result of more recent trends, which from 1979 saw the introduction of more labour regulations in terms of statutes enacted, but with the aim of setting labour emancipate of interfe rence from state control and what was seen as unnecessary social partners, such as treat unions (ibid). The introduction of a New Labour cheek however saw a shift toward more family friendly employment legislation. A European directive from 1997 (European Council Directives 97/81/EC and 98/81/EC) provided that part-time workers be entitled to the same rights as alike(p) to full-time employees. The directives required European member states to implement laws, regulations and renders to pass a dash variation against part-time workers. The aim was to facilitate the development of part-time and other operative time arrangements, that were plastic and met the drives of two employers and employees (Danzinger &038 Waters Boots, 2008).In couch to promote citizens full participation in the labour market, the word-painting of The transaction dealing Act 1999, while continuing to ensure that labour relations were free of state control, provided a floor of rights, such as increase d rights for fixed and part time workers, (Biagi, 2000). on this trajectory, the handicraft Act 2002 introduced legislation providing employees with young or disabled children the right to request flexible working arrangements by their employers, that was subsequently extended in The Work and Families Act 2006 to all in allow the same rights for carers of adults (Davies, 2011). Lewis and Campbell (2007) suggest that New Labours mend with promoting a work-life balance underpinned its ideological approach to welfare, that saw bustling citizenship for all achieved principally through labour market participation (Levitas,2005). For all to participate, legislation has provided for the extension of childcare services and maternity leave and the introduction of parental and paternity leave. Further, rather than reducing working hours, the Labour governing promoted the right to request flexible working hours as a way for families to manage their working patterns with their caring resp onsibility timetables (Busby and James, 2011).Hill et al (2001) disclose flexible working to include activities such as part-time, job share and homeworking or whatever variation outside 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 &038 Cooper (2005) argue that although in principle flexible working can take many forms, in reality, the main flexibility that UK employers go is a reduction of working hours.From an employers perspective, employment legislation can also be seen as promoting the creation of work patterns and arrangements in enounce to maximise employment productivity, customer satisfaction and staff efficiency (Pettinger, 1998). This demand, Pettinger suggests, has fall down about as a result of the expansion of global markets, arguing and choice, pressures on resources and increasing customer demands, together with changin g patterns of consumption (ibid). Therefore, Pettinger (1998) suggests that against this background, flexibility can be seen as a corporate attitude, whereby a full flexible labour market is seen as generating a more sound hands.Faulkener (2001) argues that while it is recognised that it is the above drivers that have influenced the development of flexible working practices, there is also another important agenda. Here, Jones and Jones (2011) identify that family friendly legislation is more representative of the business case for flexible working legislation, which revolves al well-nigh the identification of recruitment pools, particularly women, and the older population, who have yet to be fully exploited (Faulkener, 2001, Jones &038 Jones,2011).Arguments Against more Employment commandment consort to a British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) (2010) report on employment regulation, a survey of British businesses see an emerging consensus that the proliferation of legislation provid ing flexible working conditions has become increasingly problematic. The report argues that the shift from the regulation of collective dicker to individual employment contracts, later evolving into the the great unwashed and complexity of statutory legislation today, has led to difficulties with understanding and compliance (ibid). The report specifically attacks the piecemeal legislative approach to flexible working shown by the latest introduction of laws and regulations (see vermiform appendix 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 incur the cost of familiarising themselves as each new law is enacted, where there is a greater attempt of mistakes. As a result, businesses need to bring their knowledge up to date since the previous change in the law, such as through employment law books and guides or paying for legal advice. Consequently, the report argues, employment legislation can act like a tax, by raising cost (ibid). The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) (2006) argue further that even if there is a belief that the increase of employment law can correct 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 mooring (2009) query paper also casts enquiry over whether political sympathiess are able to understand business enough to physique effective legislation. The BCC (2010), representing one degree Celsius thousand 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 fall off disputes. In reality, the BCC argue, it is less expensive to settle disputes with the employee and prevent reputational damage than it is to defend a claim. The BCC and so recomme nds streamlining and reducing the kernel 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 findings in the business sector are negative. According to a Chartered Institute of personalized Development (CIPD) Survey Report (2005), who surveyed Human 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 carrying into action of employment law is the perception that there is too much employment legislation (ibid). In response, the Annual Employment natural law recap by the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) (2012) aims to tackle perceptions that there are too many employment laws, through lobbying for reform, while ensuring that reforms are not at the expense of compromising fairness for individu als. The report argues that although businesses complain about the heart of employment legislation, in reality the UK has one of the most lightly-regulated labour markets among highly-developed countries. Only the United States and Canada have lighter overall employment regulation (OECD Indicators of Employment egis, 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, entirely to offer the operations 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 give to provide fairness at work that ensures a work life balance (Burnett et al, 2012). In a 2012 report by working(a) Families and mavin Plus One, Happy Homes and Productive Workplaces, from a sample of over both thousand respondents, nearly eighty percent of respondents felt that flexible working was the most beneficial working arrangement (Burnett et al, 2012). However, the report argued that in tell apart to support flexible working, further legislation was needed in order to promote arrangements that are mutually beneficial and embedded as a refining 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 ahead the benefits of flexible working (CIPD, 2013). Drawing on the findings of the 2011 Workplace Employment dealings 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 chan ges 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 reduced collective bargaining powers. This is reflected in the WERS study, in 2012, which shows very low levels of employee engagement in collective bargaining, only six percent in private businesses, with fourteen percent of employee trade union membership in the same sector (Wanrooy et al, 2011). The near absence seizure 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 close this gap (CIPD, 2012).Danzinger and Waters Boots (2008), argue that in reality flexible working legislation does not go far enough. Unions and parent advocacy groups argue that many workers who would benefit from flexible arrangements do not ask for them out of fear of being refused, or because of a fear that asking may jeopardise their moves. 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 sexuality inequalities by linking flexible work and care responsibilities, reinforcing a mother career track that pairs women with demotions of pay and position. Further, unfair shift 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 fort their claims (ibid).Future Changes to Flexible functional LegislationNew flexible working employment legislation to come into effect in 2014 appears to address well-nigh of the above criticisms. The government plans to extend the statutory right to request flexible working arrangements to all employees (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 considering flexible working requests, which is latestly very prescriptive, will be relaxed and employers will instead be required to consider requests in a just manner and within a reasonable time frame (ACAS, 2014).Currently, it is accomplishable for an employee to claim compensation due to the employers failure to comply with the procedures determined down in the Flexible Working (Procedural Requirements) Regulations 2002. In Bryan v corporate Advertising Ltd ET/2105111/10, although the tribunal rejected Mrs Bryans claim that she was constructively discount and subjected to indirect sex discrimination, it was however held that the company had breached the procedures laid down by the 2002 Regulations. This procedural breach may no longer by relied upon under the 2014 legislation. However, successful claims may still be used under anti-d iscrimination 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 return from maternity leave on a part-time basis to a managers role. According to a Equality and Human Rights Commission report (2009), proposed changes in flexible working legislation will act up to fail to encourage workers in management positions to request flexible arrangements (EHRC, 2009). The report suggests that under trustworthy legislation, employees in management positions are less likely to make a request for flexible working, and when they do, they are less likely to succeed (ibid).In the governmen ts 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 legitimate ambition for all employees (HM presidential term, 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 always be accommodated, in their entirety, on business grounds (ibid).Drawing on the CIPD report (2005), a bigger 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. Given that the new legislation attempts to augment the right to request flexible workin g to all employees, employers may reflexion an increased challenge to accommodate competing requests. However, according to the same report, since the introduction of the current legislation, less than one-tenth of employers have faced grievance or corrective 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 amendments in staff retention, improved esprit de corps and a reduction in costs (CIPD, 2005). These reported benefits need to be equilibrate against arguments that oppose more legislation promoting flexible working (ibid).to a greater extent significantly, the statutory provision to enable greater flexibility in the oeuvre looks set to increase in the future. In a recent report, Management Futures The World in 2018 (2008), the findings predict that organisations will become more virtual, the allowance for talent will increase, with n ew aspirations and ambitions of a multi-cultural, widely dispersed workforce (Chartered Management Institute (CMI),2008).ConclusionThis report has attempted to provide an sixth sense 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 rig hts of individuals (CIPD, 2005).Word count 2644BibliographyAdvisory, Conciliation and Arbitration dish out (ACAS) (2014) Employment constabulary Update. ready(prenominal) online from http//www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=3909 Accessed on quaternary January 2014 Anderman, S.D (2000) Labour rightManagement Decisions and Workers Rights fourth Edition. Oxford Oxford University Press British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) (2005) Employment Law Burden or BenefitBCC gettable 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. ready(prenominal) online from http//www.thamesvalleychamber.co.uk Accessed on 4th January 2014 Biagi, M (2000) Job Creation and Labour Law From Protection Towards Pro-action. The Hague Klvwar Law outside(a) Burnett, S Coleman, L, Houlston C, Reynolds, J (2012) Happy Homes and Productive Workplaces compendium Report of Research Findings. functional online from http//www.oneplusone.org.uk Accessed on 4th January 2014 Busby, N &038 James, G (2011) Families, Care-giving and Paid Word Challenging Labour Law in the twenty-first 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 &038 Waters Boots, S (2008) Memo on the dissemble of the United Kingdoms Flexible Working Act. G eorgetown Georgetown University Law Centre Davies, A (2011) Employment Law and Workplace Law Handbook 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 Series 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 feminist technology studies, Womens Studies International Forum, Vol. 2, No.1, pg.79-95.Hill, E.J., Hawkins, A .J., Ferris, M. &038 Weitzman, M. 2001. Finding an Extra Day a Week The Positive beguile of Perceived Job Flexibility on Work and Family Life residual Family Relations, 50(1) pg.49-58.HM Government (2012) Consultation on Modern Workplaces, Modern Workplaces Government Response on Flexible Parental 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 Textbook 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 &038 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) Iss ues in Employment Law disclose Issues for the New Parliament 2010. House of Commons 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 &038 Holmes,A (2008) Cases and Materials on Employment Law. Oxford Oxford University Press Pettinger (1998) Managing the Workforce. London Cassell Trade Union Congress (TUC) (2008) Changing quantify 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.W ERS-first-findings-report-third-edition Accessed on 4th January 2014