“Labour Law is a Subset of Employment Law” Revisited

This article revisits the arguments in Brian Langille’s seminal law review article, “Labour Law is a Subset of Employment Law.” Langille’s article was based upon two main claims: (a) that (individual) employment law should be understood as the “set” and (collective) labour law the “subset” of employment law (the primacy of employment law); (b) that “public values” have priority over “private values” in the regulation of work (the primacy of public values). These two claims were presented as mutually reinforcing in “Subset.” Drawing on specific examples from UK and Canadian law, this article endorses the first claim but rejects the second. Public and private values intersect in a multiplicity of ways. It is too reductive to accord primacy to the “public”or the “private.” Employment law has always been a hybrid discipline shaped by public and private law. Dans le présent article, nous reprenons les arguments avancés dans le fameux article de Brian Langille, « Labour Law is a Subset of Employment Law .» Cet article présentait deux arguments principaux : a) que le droit de l’emploi (individuel) doit être compris comme « l’ensemble » et le droit du travail (collectif) comme le « sous-ensemble » du droit de l’emploi (la primauté étant accordée au droit de l’emploi); b) que les « valeurs publiques » ont la priorité sur les « valeurs privées » dans la réglementation du travail (la primauté étant accordée aux valeurs publiques). Ces deux revendications ont été présentées comme se renforçant mutuellement dans le « sous-ensemble .» En s’appuyant sur des exemples spécifiques du droit britannique et canadien, nous appuyons dans le présent article le premier argument mais rejetons le second. Les valeurs publiques et privées se croisent de multiples façons. Il est trop réducteur d’accorder la primauté au « public » ou au « privé .» Le droit de l’emploi travail a toujours été une discipline hybride façonnée par le droit public et le droit privé

‘Voice’ and ‘Choice’ in Modern Working Practices:Problems with the Taylor Review

Abstract In July 2017, the Taylor Review on ‘Modern Working Practices’ was published. Led by Matthew Taylor, the Review aimed to consider the implications of new emerging business models for both worker rights and employer obligations. Its recommendations seem ill-informed, methodologically unsound and, ultimately, unlikely to address the widespread deprivation of workers’ rights within the ‘gig’ economy and contemporary workplace. We shape our critique of the Taylor approach by reference to the constructions of ‘choice’ used in the Review and the limited scope permitted for worker ‘voice’. In particular, we observe an evasion of international labour standards relevant to ‘decent work’ and a lack of attention to fundamental human rights. Identifying methodological flaws in the Report and focusing on three central areas of reform: employment status; zero-hours contracts (ZHCs); and workers’ voice and representation, this article critically analyses a number of the proposals put forward, concluding that many of the Taylor Review recommendations are not only problematic, but dangerous, with potentially serious deregulatory repercussions for UK workers if actioned upon and implemented by the current Government.</jats:p

The Politics and Law of Trade Union Recognition:Democracy, Human Rights and Pragmatism in the New Zealand and British Context

In this article, we seek to examine the potential for cross-fertilisation of legal regimes relating to trade union representation of members in collective bargaining. The United Kingdom has moved from an entirely voluntarist model in the 1980s to a statutory regime which facilitates recognition of a trade union following majority support from workers (usually by a ballot). By way of contrast, New Zealand has shifted from a highly regulated award-based model in the 1980s to an "agency" model whereby an employer is required to bargain in good faith with any union representing two or more of the employer's employees, but with some balloting also contemplated for coverage of non-unionised workers. It is uncontroversial that the United Kingdom legislation has been severely limited in its effects in a context of ongoing decline in collective bargaining, while the New Zealand model offers only faint remediation of the dismembering of the collective bargaining system by the Employment Contracts Act 1991. In both legal systems, a Labour Party is now proposing implementation of forms of sectoral bargaining. We explore the reasons for these political and legal developments, exploring democratic and human rights rationales for their adoption, as well as more pragmatic approaches. In so doing we examine the scope for democratic trade union representation via consent or ballot, the role of individual human rights and regulatory rationales. We conclude by considering how representative and regulatory approaches may be mutually reinforcing and address different understandings of "constitutionalisation". In so doing, we reaffirm the emphasis placed in Gordon Anderson's writings on substance over form

Privatisation, outsourcing and employment relations in Israel

This chapter focuses on the effect that outsourcing, as a subset of privatization, has had on employment relations in Israel. In particular, chapter highlights the adverse, and perhaps counter-intuitive, effects that the law has had on the plight of Israeli contract workers. Israeli governmental agencies and local councils have turned to outsourcing as a means to circumventing post limits and due to the Ministry of Finance’s pressures to increase ‘flexibility’ in the civil service. Intriguingly, paradoxically, and tragically, the law’s effort to regulate this growing phenomenon has led employers resorting to tactics which have redefined agency workers (teachers, nurses, etc) as workers subject to the “outsourcing of services” (teaching, nursing, etc). This has moved such workers into a legal void, depriving them of rights and protection