Working Time Remedies Beyond Brexit: Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and Another v Agnew and Others

IF 1 4区 社会学 Q3 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR
Lisa Rodgers, Oxana Golynker
{"title":"Working Time Remedies Beyond Brexit: Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and Another v Agnew and Others","authors":"Lisa Rodgers, Oxana Golynker","doi":"10.1093/indlaw/dwae007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"On 4 October 2023, the ‘long-anticipated’ judgment in PCC v Agnew was handed down by the Supreme Court. This case concerned claims for holiday pay made by police officers and other civilian staff employed by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). The Supreme Court had to decide two main issues. The first was whether police officers could take advantage of the more generous remedy provisions in respect of holiday pay claims in the Employment Rights Order 1996 (ERO) (which largely corresponds to the UK Employment Rights Act 1996) as opposed to the Working Time Regulations. The second issue was the correct interpretation of the ERO provisions. As well as the important practical implications of the case, there are also interesting jurisprudential issues that arise. The case deals with the interpretation of European Union (EU) derived rights in the labour context. This is a sensitive area, given that access to EU interpretive mechanisms usually equates to a more progressive reading of rights, and this fans the flame of UK government scepticism to both the EU and working time rights. This article discusses the particular approach to statutory interpretation taken by the Supreme Court and the implications of this approach for the progressive interpretation of EU-derived employment rights going forward.","PeriodicalId":45482,"journal":{"name":"Industrial Law Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Industrial Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwae007","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

On 4 October 2023, the ‘long-anticipated’ judgment in PCC v Agnew was handed down by the Supreme Court. This case concerned claims for holiday pay made by police officers and other civilian staff employed by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). The Supreme Court had to decide two main issues. The first was whether police officers could take advantage of the more generous remedy provisions in respect of holiday pay claims in the Employment Rights Order 1996 (ERO) (which largely corresponds to the UK Employment Rights Act 1996) as opposed to the Working Time Regulations. The second issue was the correct interpretation of the ERO provisions. As well as the important practical implications of the case, there are also interesting jurisprudential issues that arise. The case deals with the interpretation of European Union (EU) derived rights in the labour context. This is a sensitive area, given that access to EU interpretive mechanisms usually equates to a more progressive reading of rights, and this fans the flame of UK government scepticism to both the EU and working time rights. This article discusses the particular approach to statutory interpretation taken by the Supreme Court and the implications of this approach for the progressive interpretation of EU-derived employment rights going forward.
英国脱欧之后的工作时间补救措施:北爱尔兰警察局局长及另一人诉阿格纽等人案
2023 年 10 月 4 日,最高法院对 "期待已久 "的 PCC 诉 Agnew 案做出判决。该案涉及北爱尔兰警察局(PSNI)雇用的警官和其他文职人员对假日工资的要求。最高法院必须裁定两个主要问题。第一个问题是,与《工作时间条例》相比,1996 年《就业权利令》(ERO)(该法令与英国 1996 年《就业权利法》基本对应)在假日工资索赔方面规定了更为宽松的补救措施,警官是否可以利用这些补救措施。第二个问题是如何正确理解《就业权利法令》的规定。该案除了具有重要的实际影响外,还产生了一些有趣的法理问题。该案涉及在劳动方面对欧洲联盟(欧盟)衍生权利的解释。这是一个敏感的领域,因为利用欧盟的解释机制通常等同于对权利进行更进步的解读,而这也引发了英国政府对欧盟和工作时间权利的怀疑。本文讨论了最高法院对法定解释所采取的特殊方法,以及这种方法对欧盟派生就业权利的渐进式解释所产生的影响。
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
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
20.00%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: Industrial Law Journal is established as the leading periodical in its field, providing comment and in-depth analysis on a wide range of topics relating to employment law. It is essential reading for practising lawyers, academics, and lay industrial relations experts to keep abreast of newly enacted legislation and proposals for law reform. In addition Industrial Law Journal carries commentary on relevant government publications and reviews of books relating to labour law.
×
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