A Purposive Approach to Employment Protection or a Missed Opportunity?

J. McClelland
{"title":"A Purposive Approach to Employment Protection or a Missed Opportunity?","authors":"J. McClelland","doi":"10.1111/J.1468-2230.2012.00911.X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This note discusses how far the Supreme Court judgment in Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and others provides grounds for a purposive interpretation of the contract of employment for employment protection purposes, or whether its scope is limited to the specific issue of considering the validity of boilerplate contractual terms. The author reflects on the approach taken by the Supreme Court and how far issues of inequality and substantive fairness within employment relationships have been addressed. The note concludes that whilst the judgment has extended the context of facts to be considered to include a consideration of relative bargaining power, this in itself does not extend to a consideration of substantive fairness nor does it clarify the standards that should apply to a fair employment relationship.","PeriodicalId":357008,"journal":{"name":"Employment Law eJournal","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Employment Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1468-2230.2012.00911.X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

This note discusses how far the Supreme Court judgment in Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and others provides grounds for a purposive interpretation of the contract of employment for employment protection purposes, or whether its scope is limited to the specific issue of considering the validity of boilerplate contractual terms. The author reflects on the approach taken by the Supreme Court and how far issues of inequality and substantive fairness within employment relationships have been addressed. The note concludes that whilst the judgment has extended the context of facts to be considered to include a consideration of relative bargaining power, this in itself does not extend to a consideration of substantive fairness nor does it clarify the standards that should apply to a fair employment relationship.
有目的的就业保障措施还是错失良机?
本文讨论最高法院在Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher和其他案件中的判决在多大程度上为就业保护目的的雇佣合同提供了有目的的解释依据,或者其范围是否仅限于考虑模板合同条款的有效性这一具体问题。作者反思了最高法院采取的方法,以及在多大程度上解决了就业关系中的不平等和实质性公平问题。该说明的结论是,虽然判决扩大了需要考虑的事实背景,包括对相对议价能力的考虑,但这本身并没有扩大到对实质性公平的考虑,也没有澄清应适用于公平雇佣关系的标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信