'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.
full text via SSRN
'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.
click here for full text via
OUP [ON
CAMPUS]
click here for full text via OUP [OFF CAMPUS]
'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.
click here for full text via
WIley [ON
CAMPUS]
click here for full text via Wiley [OFF CAMPUS]
'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.
click here for full text via
OUP [ON
CAMPUS]
click here for full text via OUP [OFF CAMPUS]
‘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
