解雇和重聘":澳大利亚的四个教训

IF 1 4区 社会学 Q3 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR
Marilyn J Pittard, K D Ewing
{"title":"解雇和重聘\":澳大利亚的四个教训","authors":"Marilyn J Pittard, K D Ewing","doi":"10.1093/indlaw/dwae023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The practice of firing employees and then rehiring them in their same jobs on inferior conditions and lower wages (‘fire and rehire’) has emerged as a matter of acute political controversy. Its use in the United Kingdom has become even more controversial in the period since the Covid-19 pandemic. A brutal example of the practice was seen in the P&O case, which could be viewed as an example of ‘fire and replace’ as well as ‘fire and rehire’. In March 2022, P&O Ferries summarily dismissed 786 seafarers, setting aside £44 million to meet the anticipated compensation costs arising from its failure to comply with multiple employment law obligations owed to the crew. Approximately 100 of those dismissed were re-engaged on new terms, the remainder replaced by new crew engaged through agencies on inferior terms and conditions. This article addresses what would need to be done to ‘ban’ fire and rehire, and the related practice of fire and replace. It is argued that fire and rehire is a symptom of system failure which will not be addressed by sticking plaster solutions or by an unenforceable code, but by addressing the underlying causes. This means better regulation, treating collective agreements and contracts of employment with greater respect, better procedures for the negotiation of change, and more effective remedies designed to restrain employers from acting unlawfully. In addressing these matters we draw extensively on the experience of Australia where fire and rehire as understood or practised in the United Kingdom is largely unknown.","PeriodicalId":45482,"journal":{"name":"Industrial Law Journal","volume":"47 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘Fire and Rehire’: Four Lessons from Australia\",\"authors\":\"Marilyn J Pittard, K D Ewing\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/indlaw/dwae023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The practice of firing employees and then rehiring them in their same jobs on inferior conditions and lower wages (‘fire and rehire’) has emerged as a matter of acute political controversy. Its use in the United Kingdom has become even more controversial in the period since the Covid-19 pandemic. A brutal example of the practice was seen in the P&O case, which could be viewed as an example of ‘fire and replace’ as well as ‘fire and rehire’. In March 2022, P&O Ferries summarily dismissed 786 seafarers, setting aside £44 million to meet the anticipated compensation costs arising from its failure to comply with multiple employment law obligations owed to the crew. Approximately 100 of those dismissed were re-engaged on new terms, the remainder replaced by new crew engaged through agencies on inferior terms and conditions. This article addresses what would need to be done to ‘ban’ fire and rehire, and the related practice of fire and replace. It is argued that fire and rehire is a symptom of system failure which will not be addressed by sticking plaster solutions or by an unenforceable code, but by addressing the underlying causes. This means better regulation, treating collective agreements and contracts of employment with greater respect, better procedures for the negotiation of change, and more effective remedies designed to restrain employers from acting unlawfully. In addressing these matters we draw extensively on the experience of Australia where fire and rehire as understood or practised in the United Kingdom is largely unknown.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45482,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Industrial Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"47 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-18\",\"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/dwae023\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Industrial Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwae023","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

摘要

解雇员工,然后以更差的条件和更低的工资重新雇用他们从事同样的工作("解雇和重新雇用")的做法已成为一个引起严重政治争议的问题。自 19 世纪科维德大流行以来,这种做法在英国的使用引起了更大的争议。P&O 案就是这种做法的一个残酷例子,它既可以被视为 "解雇和替换",也可以被视为 "解雇和重新雇用"。2022 年 3 月,P&O Ferries 公司立即解雇了 786 名海员,并预留了 4,400 万英镑用于支付因未能履行对船员的多项雇佣法义务而产生的预期赔偿费用。约有 100 名被解雇的船员按新条款被重新雇用,其余船员则由中介公司以较低的条款和条件雇用的新船员取代。本文讨论了 "禁止 "解雇和重新雇佣以及相关的解雇和替换做法需要采取的措施。文章认为,解雇和重聘是制度失灵的一种表现,不能靠 "一贴了之 "的解决方案或无法执行的法规来解决,而要解决根本原因。这就意味着要加强监管,更加尊重集体协议和雇用合同,改进变革谈判程序,采取更加有效的补救措施,限制雇主的不法行为。在讨论这些问题时,我们广泛借鉴了澳大利亚的经验,因为澳大利亚对解雇和重新雇用的理解或做法在英国基本上是未知的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
‘Fire and Rehire’: Four Lessons from Australia
The practice of firing employees and then rehiring them in their same jobs on inferior conditions and lower wages (‘fire and rehire’) has emerged as a matter of acute political controversy. Its use in the United Kingdom has become even more controversial in the period since the Covid-19 pandemic. A brutal example of the practice was seen in the P&O case, which could be viewed as an example of ‘fire and replace’ as well as ‘fire and rehire’. In March 2022, P&O Ferries summarily dismissed 786 seafarers, setting aside £44 million to meet the anticipated compensation costs arising from its failure to comply with multiple employment law obligations owed to the crew. Approximately 100 of those dismissed were re-engaged on new terms, the remainder replaced by new crew engaged through agencies on inferior terms and conditions. This article addresses what would need to be done to ‘ban’ fire and rehire, and the related practice of fire and replace. It is argued that fire and rehire is a symptom of system failure which will not be addressed by sticking plaster solutions or by an unenforceable code, but by addressing the underlying causes. This means better regulation, treating collective agreements and contracts of employment with greater respect, better procedures for the negotiation of change, and more effective remedies designed to restrain employers from acting unlawfully. In addressing these matters we draw extensively on the experience of Australia where fire and rehire as understood or practised in the United Kingdom is largely unknown.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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