零时工合同和英国劳动法:发展和可能性

IF 1.1 Q2 LAW
J. Atkinson
{"title":"零时工合同和英国劳动法:发展和可能性","authors":"J. Atkinson","doi":"10.1177/20319525221104165","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The UK has seen a dramatic growth in precarious work over recent decades, including the amorphous category of ‘zero-hours contracts’ which are often regarded as a paradigm example of an exploitative and insecure form of work. Although somewhat overshadowed by litigation and debates surrounding the gig-economy, the regulation of zero hours work continues to be a pressing issue in the UK, and important questions as to the rights that are, and should be, available to individuals with these contracts remain unanswered. This article sets out the detrimental effects that zero hours working arrangements have in the absence of adequate regulatory safeguards and argues that the orthodox treatment of zero hours contracts under English law, and the standard tools of employment law, fail to protect against these economic and social harms. The article then assesses the extent to which recent legislative and common law developments improve the position of zero hours workers, and whether existing legislation might be creatively applied to better protect these individuals. While current statutory frameworks, including reforms and legislation aimed at regulating atypical work, fall short of adequately protecting zero hours workers, the ‘purposive approach’ to employment status developed by the Supreme Court in Uber makes it considerably easier for zero hours contracts to be brought within the protective scope of employment law. It is argued that under this approach many individuals with supposedly ‘zero hours’ working arrangements should in fact now be regarded as employees with overarching contracts of employment. Despite the significance of this, however, it is ultimately concluded that further statutory intervention is necessary to effectively regulate zero hours work in the UK.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":"13 1","pages":"347 - 374"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Zero-hours contracts and english employment law: Developments and possibilities\",\"authors\":\"J. Atkinson\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20319525221104165\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The UK has seen a dramatic growth in precarious work over recent decades, including the amorphous category of ‘zero-hours contracts’ which are often regarded as a paradigm example of an exploitative and insecure form of work. Although somewhat overshadowed by litigation and debates surrounding the gig-economy, the regulation of zero hours work continues to be a pressing issue in the UK, and important questions as to the rights that are, and should be, available to individuals with these contracts remain unanswered. This article sets out the detrimental effects that zero hours working arrangements have in the absence of adequate regulatory safeguards and argues that the orthodox treatment of zero hours contracts under English law, and the standard tools of employment law, fail to protect against these economic and social harms. The article then assesses the extent to which recent legislative and common law developments improve the position of zero hours workers, and whether existing legislation might be creatively applied to better protect these individuals. While current statutory frameworks, including reforms and legislation aimed at regulating atypical work, fall short of adequately protecting zero hours workers, the ‘purposive approach’ to employment status developed by the Supreme Court in Uber makes it considerably easier for zero hours contracts to be brought within the protective scope of employment law. It is argued that under this approach many individuals with supposedly ‘zero hours’ working arrangements should in fact now be regarded as employees with overarching contracts of employment. Despite the significance of this, however, it is ultimately concluded that further statutory intervention is necessary to effectively regulate zero hours work in the UK.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41157,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Labour Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"347 - 374\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Labour Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221104165\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Labour Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221104165","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

近几十年来,英国不稳定的工作急剧增长,包括无定形的“零小时合同”,这通常被视为剥削和不安全工作形式的典型例子。尽管零工经济的诉讼和辩论在一定程度上掩盖了这一点,但在英国,对零小时工作的监管仍然是一个紧迫的问题,关于拥有这些合同的个人现在和应该享有的权利的重要问题仍未得到解答。本文阐述了在缺乏充分监管保障的情况下,零小时工作安排所产生的有害影响,并认为英国法律对零小时合同的正统处理以及就业法的标准工具未能防止这些经济和社会危害。然后,文章评估了最近的立法和普通法发展在多大程度上改善了零时工的地位,以及是否可以创造性地应用现有立法来更好地保护这些人。尽管目前的法定框架,包括旨在监管非典型工作的改革和立法,未能充分保护零时工,但最高法院在优步制定的就业状况“有目的的方法”使零时工合同更容易纳入就业法的保护范围。有人认为,在这种方法下,许多所谓“零小时”工作安排的人现在实际上应该被视为拥有总体雇佣合同的员工。然而,尽管这一点意义重大,但最终得出的结论是,为了有效监管英国的零时工作,有必要进行进一步的法定干预。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Zero-hours contracts and english employment law: Developments and possibilities
The UK has seen a dramatic growth in precarious work over recent decades, including the amorphous category of ‘zero-hours contracts’ which are often regarded as a paradigm example of an exploitative and insecure form of work. Although somewhat overshadowed by litigation and debates surrounding the gig-economy, the regulation of zero hours work continues to be a pressing issue in the UK, and important questions as to the rights that are, and should be, available to individuals with these contracts remain unanswered. This article sets out the detrimental effects that zero hours working arrangements have in the absence of adequate regulatory safeguards and argues that the orthodox treatment of zero hours contracts under English law, and the standard tools of employment law, fail to protect against these economic and social harms. The article then assesses the extent to which recent legislative and common law developments improve the position of zero hours workers, and whether existing legislation might be creatively applied to better protect these individuals. While current statutory frameworks, including reforms and legislation aimed at regulating atypical work, fall short of adequately protecting zero hours workers, the ‘purposive approach’ to employment status developed by the Supreme Court in Uber makes it considerably easier for zero hours contracts to be brought within the protective scope of employment law. It is argued that under this approach many individuals with supposedly ‘zero hours’ working arrangements should in fact now be regarded as employees with overarching contracts of employment. Despite the significance of this, however, it is ultimately concluded that further statutory intervention is necessary to effectively regulate zero hours work in the UK.
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
1.60
自引率
28.60%
发文量
29
×
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