Astrid Sanders

Astrid Sanders

Administrative support: Sarah Lee
Room: New Academic Building 7.19
Tel. 020-7955-7244

Astrid Sanders joined the LSE in September 2013 as an Assistant Professor of Labour Law. She completed all her postgraduate and undergraduate studies at Corpus Christi College, University of Oxford. Astrid was awarded her doctorate from the University of Oxford in 2009. As well as her D.Phil, she earlier obtained two other postgraduate degrees at Corpus Christi College. She also achieved outstanding marks as an undergraduate in her law examinations. The University of Oxford notably awarded her two prizes for Best Performance. Prior to joining the LSE, she was a Lecturer at Birmingham Law School, University of Birmingham for four years from 2009 to 2013.

Research Interests
  • Labour Law

  • Employment Law

  • Relationship between labour law and contract and tort laws

  • Relationship between labour law and human rights law

Selected articles
and chapters in books

'The Content of Contracts of Employment; Terms Incorporated from Collective Agreements or From Other Sources’, chapter 21 in M. Freedland, A. Bogg, D. Cabrelli, H. Collins, N. Countouris, A.C.L. Davies, S. Deakin and J. Prassl (eds), The Contract of Employment (OUP 2016)

‘Variation and Suspension’, chapter 23, co-written with N. Countouris, in M. Freedland, A. Bogg, D. Cabrelli, H. Collins, N. Countouris, A.C.L. Davies, S. Deakin and J. Prassl (eds), The Contract of Employment (OUP 2016)

'The impact of the 'Ruggie Framework' and the 'United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights' on transnational human rights litigation, in The Business and Human Rights Landscape: Moving Forward, Looking Back. Edited by Jena Martin and Karen E Bravo, CUP 2015

'The Impact of the "Ruggie Framework" and the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights on Transnational Human Rights Litigation' LSE Law Society an Economy Working Paper Series WP18/2014

This paper explores the impact of the Ruggie 'Protect, Respect and Remedy' framework and UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights on transnational human rights litigation. It considers the impact to date, and the possible impact the Ruggie Framework and UN Guiding Principles could have on a widely predicted increase in the number of state law negligence claims against transnational corporations in the US after the decision of the Supreme Court in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum limiting the jurisdictional reach of the US Alien Tort Statute 1789.

'Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Disciplinary Procedures in the Workplace: Recent Developments' Revue de Droit du Travail (French labour law journal) July/August 2014 pp.490-501

'Does Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights Apply to Disciplinary Procedures in the Workplace?' Oxford Journal of Legal Studies (2013) 33 (4) pp.791-819

Remarkably, there have been three decisions by the Court of Appeal and one decision by the Supreme Court (including notably R(G) v Governors of X School) in the space of three years on the same question as to whether the procedural guarantees of Article 6 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) can apply to disciplinary proceedings in the workplace. The earlier recent domestic decisions held that Article 6(1) could apply or did apply to workplace disciplinary procedures and could imply or did imply a right to legal representation. More recently, employees have used Article 6 to argue for a right to independent disciplinary panels. In comparison, the more recent domestic decisions have held that Article 6(1) did not apply to workplace disciplinary procedures. This article explores the scope for Article 6(1) to apply to workplace disciplinary procedures by looking at the Strasbourg case law and explores the additional possibility that Article 6 could be engaged in workplace disciplinary procedures based on the alternative civil rights not to be wrongfully dismissed or unfairly dismissed. The benefit of these alternative civil rights would be that they would open up the protection of Article 6 to more employees than just professionals. This article also discusses the apparent conflict between the aims of employees in the cases on Article 6 ECHR and recent broader policy developments in favour of early and informal resolution of employment disputes. It is concluded that these cases reinforce objections to the Coalition Government’s broader ‘rebalancing’ agenda, as dismissal laws require strengthening and not further weakening.

'The Law of Unfair Dismissal and Behaviour Outside Work'  Legal Studies (2014) 34 (2) pp.328-352

Four of the better-known unfair dismissal cases involve dismissals of employees for behaviour outside work. All four of those dismissals were held to be ‘fair’. This paper looks afresh at the subject matter of dismissals for behaviour outside work. It will argue, first, that employment tribunals should apply a separate framework to dismissals for behaviour outside work and not just apply the normal framework that is designed for dismissals for behaviour at work. Secondly, the paper will construct this separate framework to apply to dismissals for extramural behaviour. It will be argued that there should henceforth be a presumption that dismissals for behaviour outside work will be unfair unless the employer has a strong reason for thinking that the extramural behaviour of the employee will damage the business of the employer. The purpose of this paper is to suggest legal reasons for change to this area of unfair dismissal law as an addition to previously discussed normative reasons for change. In particular, the paper will develop the analogy between unfair dismissal cases on behaviour outside work and breach of personal confidence cases since the Human Rights Act 1998.

'The Changing Face of 'Flexicurity' in Times of Austerity': chapter 15 in edited collection by Prof Mark Freedland Dr Nicola Countouris, Resocialising Europe in a Time of Crisis (CUP,  2013) pp.314-332

‘A Right to Legal Representation (in the workplace) during disciplinary proceedings?’ Industrial Law Journal 2010 39: 166-182

’"Better" Dispute Resolution in Part I of the Employment Act 2008?’ Industrial Law Journal 2009 38: 30-49

This article will analyse Part One of the Employment Act 2008 on employment dispute resolution and in particular the repeal of the statutory workplace dispute resolution procedures only four years after Regulations implemented them. It will begin by considering the background of increasing tribunal caseload that led to their introduction in the first place. Later sections will examine the replacement of these statutory procedures with what Ministers described as the triple package of a new Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service (‘ACAS’) helpline, increased ACAS conciliation and a revised ACAS Code. The language of repeal and the Act's reintroduction of the Polkey line of cases might suggest that dismissal law is merely reverting back to its pre October 2004 position. This article will, however, conclude that Part One does not just ‘simplify’ dismissal law, or ‘return’ the law to September 2004 or indeed to any other time frame. Instead, it weakens key procedural protections for employees potentially by conflating the 2002 Act's different tests of ‘automatically’ unfair and ‘ordinarily’ unfair dismissals, for example. Lowering standards of procedural justice is significant in itself but this takes added importance for dismissed employees as tribunals rarely investigate the substantive fairness of dismissals.

‘The Minimalist Approach to Minimum Standards of Procedural Fairness’ Industrial Law Journal 2008 37: 89-99

‘Expanding The No-Difference Rule in the Law of Unfair Dismissal’ Industrial Law Journal 2007 36: 355-363