我们相距甚远:不相称的工资扣减、工业行动和人权

IF 1 4区 社会学 Q3 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR
Dave Mead
{"title":"我们相距甚远:不相称的工资扣减、工业行动和人权","authors":"Dave Mead","doi":"10.1093/indlaw/dwac037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article sets out a human rights-based critique of one aspect of the common law wage/work bargain: the rule that entitles employers to deduct an entire week’s pay from those taking action short of strike, and who thereby perform most, but not all, of their contractual duties. It makes the case that that rule, established in Miles v Wakefield MDC and Wiluszynski v Tower Hamlets over 35 years ago, constitutes a disproportionate interference with an employee’s right to strike and to take industrial action, under Article 11 of the ECHR. The article shows how such cases might be brought, depending on whether an employee is in the public or private sector and iterates the argument for implying a duty of ‘rights-obedience’ into the contract—either as a free-standing duty or as part of an expansion of the duty of mutual trust and confidence—as a corrective.","PeriodicalId":45482,"journal":{"name":"Industrial Law Journal","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"We’re Miles Apart: Disproportionate Deductions from Wages, Industrial Action and Human Rights\",\"authors\":\"Dave Mead\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/indlaw/dwac037\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This article sets out a human rights-based critique of one aspect of the common law wage/work bargain: the rule that entitles employers to deduct an entire week’s pay from those taking action short of strike, and who thereby perform most, but not all, of their contractual duties. It makes the case that that rule, established in Miles v Wakefield MDC and Wiluszynski v Tower Hamlets over 35 years ago, constitutes a disproportionate interference with an employee’s right to strike and to take industrial action, under Article 11 of the ECHR. The article shows how such cases might be brought, depending on whether an employee is in the public or private sector and iterates the argument for implying a duty of ‘rights-obedience’ into the contract—either as a free-standing duty or as part of an expansion of the duty of mutual trust and confidence—as a corrective.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45482,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Industrial Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-01\",\"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/dwac037\",\"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/dwac037","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

本文以人权为基础,对普通法工资/工作谈判的一个方面进行了批判:即雇主有权从那些在罢工之外采取行动并因此履行了大部分(但不是全部)合同义务的人身上扣除一整个星期的工资。它认为,根据欧洲人权公约第11条,在35年前的Miles v Wakefield MDC和Wiluszynski v Tower Hamlets案中确立的这一规则,对雇员罢工和采取工业行动的权利构成了不成比例的干涉。这篇文章展示了这样的案例是如何被提起的,这取决于雇员是在公共部门还是私营部门,并反复论证了在合同中暗示“权利服从”的义务——要么作为独立的义务,要么作为相互信任和信心义务的一部分——作为一种纠正。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
We’re Miles Apart: Disproportionate Deductions from Wages, Industrial Action and Human Rights
This article sets out a human rights-based critique of one aspect of the common law wage/work bargain: the rule that entitles employers to deduct an entire week’s pay from those taking action short of strike, and who thereby perform most, but not all, of their contractual duties. It makes the case that that rule, established in Miles v Wakefield MDC and Wiluszynski v Tower Hamlets over 35 years ago, constitutes a disproportionate interference with an employee’s right to strike and to take industrial action, under Article 11 of the ECHR. The article shows how such cases might be brought, depending on whether an employee is in the public or private sector and iterates the argument for implying a duty of ‘rights-obedience’ into the contract—either as a free-standing duty or as part of an expansion of the duty of mutual trust and confidence—as a corrective.
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