Unfair Dismissal Reform: Political Ping-Pong with Equality?

E. McGaughey
{"title":"Unfair Dismissal Reform: Political Ping-Pong with Equality?","authors":"E. McGaughey","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2014699","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The government proposal to re-raise the fair dismissal qualification period by Ministerial Order to two years is vulnerable to judicial review, because it will have a discriminatory impact on people protected by the Equality Act 2010 and the EU Equality Directives. The House of Lords addressed the same issue in R (Seymour-Smith) v Secretary of State for Employment after the last time the qualifying period was raised. A better alternative to halt growth in unemployment is probably not allow employers to make it easier to make workers unemployed, but to pay regard to the workforce’s views when determining the fairness of dismissals. In any event, it appears relatively clear that the courts would not let UK governments continue to play political ping pong where equal rights are at stake.","PeriodicalId":121229,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: National eJournal","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Public Law: National eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2014699","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The government proposal to re-raise the fair dismissal qualification period by Ministerial Order to two years is vulnerable to judicial review, because it will have a discriminatory impact on people protected by the Equality Act 2010 and the EU Equality Directives. The House of Lords addressed the same issue in R (Seymour-Smith) v Secretary of State for Employment after the last time the qualifying period was raised. A better alternative to halt growth in unemployment is probably not allow employers to make it easier to make workers unemployed, but to pay regard to the workforce’s views when determining the fairness of dismissals. In any event, it appears relatively clear that the courts would not let UK governments continue to play political ping pong where equal rights are at stake.
不公平解雇改革:平等的政治乒乓?
政府提议通过部长令将公平解雇资格期重新提高到两年,这很容易受到司法审查,因为它将对受《2010年平等法》和欧盟平等指令保护的人产生歧视性影响。在上一次提出资格期限后,上议院在R (Seymour-Smith)诉就业大臣一案中解决了同样的问题。阻止失业增长的一个更好的选择可能是不允许雇主更容易地让工人失业,而是在决定解雇的公平性时考虑到劳动力的观点。无论如何,似乎相对清楚的是,法院不会让英国政府在平等权利受到威胁的情况下继续打政治乒乓。
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