Nothing to fear? Equal representation in the Scottish parliament and the threat of legal challenge

No abstract available

Challenging employment tribunal fees : R (Unison) v Lord Chancellor and another (No.2)

In R (Unison) v Lord Chancellor and another (No.2) the High Court rejected Unison’s second application for judicial review of the policy of charging claimants to the Employment Tribunal (“ET”) and the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”). The policy, which was introduced across Great Britain by the coalition government in July 2013, removed the free access that has been in place since the National Industrial Relations Court was established by the Industrial Relations Act 1971. Had the court decided to strike it down, the judgment would have been effective in Scotland as well as in England and Wales. However, further devolution may lead to some interesting developments which are discussed at the end of this article

Unpaid care, paid work and austerity : a research note

The need to pursue austerity measures has been used by the UK's Coalition Government as justification for labour market deregulation alongside reductions in welfare and cuts to public services. Such reforms have resulted in reduced protection for those (women) engaged in low paid, precarious work and the loss of public sector jobs and also run the risk of upsetting the finely-tuned arrangements on which those who provide unpaid care alongside paid work depend. This research note considers the impact of recent reforms on the reconciliation of paid work and unpaid care and challenges the underlying austerity rationale

Crumbs of comfort : pregnancy and the status of 'worker' under EU law's free movement provisions

In Jessy Saint Prix v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) has ruled that an EU migrant who gives up work or seeking work because of the physical constraints of the late stages of pregnancy and the aftermath of childbirth can retain the status of 'worker'. In order to do so, she must return to work or find another job within a reasonable period after the birth of her child. In determining whether the period that has elapsed between childbirth and starting work again might be regarded as 'reasonable', national courts should take account of all of the specific circumstances of the case as well as national rules on the duration of maternity leave. The case, which was referred to the CJEU by the UK's Supreme Court, raises a number of important issues concerning EU worker status, equal treatment between men and women and protection against pregnancy discrimination under EU law against the backdrop of the rise of precarious work. Furthermore, its origin as a UK case is of particular interest due to the coalition government's welfare reforms and recent statements regarding plans to curb EU migration and to further restrict welfare benefits to EU migrants

Pulp fiction or hard fact? The development of a European Employment Policy

No abstract available

The evolution of gender equality and related employment policies

European Union (EU) law and policy on work–family reconciliation has developed by way of two parallel but often incoherent movements. The jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the EU has been a driving force in its interpretation of sex discrimination provisions in the context of claims concerning women’s labour market experiences, which have subsequently been codified, for example, to provide positive rights in relation to pregnancy and maternity. Alongside this development, policy has been linked to wider economic concerns such as the goal of full employment leading to specific measures intended to equalize employment conditions for those with non-standard working arrangements and to encourage shared parenting between men and women. The lack of a specific focus on work–family reconciliation as a goal for law and policy in its own right has resulted in a patchwork of provisions rather than an overarching framework. The net result is that EU law provides an unsatisfactory response to what has been termed the unsolved conflict between paid work and unpaid care. Recent developments may provide a solution. The Commission has reinvigorated its interest through its ‘New Start’ initiative – a package of both legislative and non-legislative measures under the auspices of the European Pillar of Social Rights launched in April 2017. Provisions incorporate, inter alia, a proposed directive that would amend the parental leave regime and introduce paid paternity and carers’ leave. This article provides a critique of law and policy to date and assesses the potential for a coordinated EU strategy for work–family reconciliation, focusing specifically on gender equality. It is argued that, even with the enhanced interest of the Commission, it may be difficult to achieve a coordinated approach to what has always been a contentious policy area within a rapidly changing EU although the United Kingdom’s departure from the EU may provide an opportunity in this respect

Regulating work and care relationships in a time of austerity: a legal perspective

Recent austerity measures have led to labour market deregulation alongside cuts to welfare provision. Such reforms have resulted in reduced protection for the large numbers of women workers who combine low paid, precarious work with high levels of care-giving. Furthermore, cuts to public services risk upsetting the finely-tuned arrangements on which those who provide care alongside paid work depend. This chapter considers the impact of austerity on the legal and policy framework surrounding the reconciliation of paid employment and unpaid care. The chapter aims to explore the relationship between gender and care in order to identify the limits of the current framework for addressing the needs of those who provide unpaid informal care alongside paid work

Power relations in employment disputes

This article reconceptualizes the operation of power relations in employment disputes. We draw on Foucault's theory of neo‐liberal governance to inform our analysis of empirical data exploring how low‐income workers make decisions about whether to engage with the Employment Tribunal system. Particular focus is placed on the ways the state governs employment disputes to achieve ideologically driven objectives. We conclude: first, that power relations in employment disputes operate across a range of institutions and individuals, and that the state's role is powerful and ongoing; secondly, that power relations operate to shape not just the objective context that workers find themselves in when experiencing an employment dispute but also workers' subjective moral codes about appropriate courses of action to take; and thirdly, that despite the powerful influence of the state, workers continue to hold non‐economic values that guide their perception of the appropriate basis for relations between employers and workers