The historical labour law in the United Kingdom

The historical labour law in the United Kingdom

The historical labour law in the United Kingdom Marks the development of UK labour law. Before the period of industrial revolution and development of mechanized manufacture, workplace regulation was based on status rather than mediation contract or mediation through the use of trade unions. The prevailing status of mass people was Serfdom exemption of occasion where artisans in town could gain measure self-regulation through the use of guilds. The law of land was found under Act of Apprentices 1563. It was a requirement that al, the wages in every district should be assessed using the justice of the peace. Mid-19th century, there was a growing recognition where requiring greater protection to ensure safety for workers and promote healthy working conditions. Some of the articles that were used in the exercise include the Master-Servant Act 1867 and the Employer Workman Act of 1875. The acts helped in eliminating unfair practices in wage contracts.

Minute regulations were made to offer governance and supervision to contract between the servants and master. The regulations were also responsible for controlling mutual obligations and rights on certain parallel lines for labourers and artificers in husbandry. Hiring was supposed to be done annually. Any worker who qualified for either of calling was restricted to accept services, imprisonment pain if necessary. The employees that were excluded possessed property of a given specified amount or engaged in science, letters and art. People who left the service were required to provide a testimony concerning their previous area of work. The testimony was useful during fresh employment or present it to a new district. In some occasions, a servant imprisoned whipped or a master fined when the rule has been breached. Employment Rights Act 1996 was proposed and passed by the conservative government in 1996. The act was in consolidation with a number of statutes like Contracts of Employment Act 1963. The creation of the Act was to make sure that employees enjoy certain rights when they are working. Some of the challenges that were to be handled by the act include, redundancy, time off rights for parenting, unreasonable dismissal and dismissal without notice. The labor government has amended the act since 1997 to include the right for requesting flexible working time.

The current case for the Council was about placing the comparator at a lower grade. Claimant of the case complained of not being employed in the same working environment with men and not treated as an equivalent. The court in UK took a bold step and added more wording to this section of Equal Pay Act 1970 to make the matter clear. According to the court, Equal Pay Act 1970 was supposed to be amended in the following way,” A woman is to be regarded as employed on work rated as equivalent with that of any man if, but only if, her job and their job have been given an equal value or her job has been given a higher value, in terms of the demand made on a worker under various headings (for instance effort, skill, decision), on a study undertaken with a view to evaluating in those terms the jobs to be done by all or any of the employees in an undertaking or group of undertakings, or would have been given an equal value, or her job would have been given a higher value, but for the evaluation being made on a system setting different values for men and women on the same demand under any heading.”

The labor law has also played a significant role in the economy of the United Kingdom. It contains a relatively light employment and hiring protection legislation. The law has facilitated a high degree of numerical labor market flexibility which has contributed highly to the economy of United Kingdom. The labor law has also helped United Kingdom to reduce labor market segmentation and high unemployment. It means that the challenge of structural unemployment need to be solved by measures that directly handle poor skills, enforcing and implementing existing labor law. Therefore, there is no need to make changes to labor law.

In United Kingdom, it is almost impossible for workers be involved in lawful industrial action. In some circumstances, the strikers can be regarded immunity bearing in mind that the contractual liability is not affected. Currently, there is no positive legal right to conducts strikes in United Kingdom. However, strike actions that have been planned and organized by trade unions are legal provided player adhere to tough conditions. For instance, the union must have a record where it conducted a lawful ballot of all the actors believed to be taking part in the strike. The event must have a close relationship between the employer and the workers over specific issues such as conditions of employment and terms of works as defined in Trade Union and Labor Relations Act 1992. The industrial action must be authorized by general secretary on any other person authorized by the rules of the union. Additionally, the person who is named in the ballot paper is responsible for making for action call before industrial action takes place. The actors must follow strict rules and the employer has to be given a notice about the action. Picket lines involves member meeting at work place to increase awareness and support for the problem. Picketing member are allowed to persuade fellow employees to stop making interaction with other people’s business. The action must be conducted in an orderly and peaceful manner because picket lines are still subjective to criminal law. Strikers are not allowed to use a threatening behavior to prevent others from attending work or obstructing the police from performing their duties. Police in United Kingdom have an opportunity to use special powers such obtaining an order to ban the picketing. If the picking comprises of more than 20 people, the police believe that the result have a serious disruption to life and people in the community.

The principle on the right to strike can be linked back in the day when nobody had the right to withdraw labor or services. Based on this facts, worker have no right to protect themselves. People enter into a voluntary agreement with employers to offer services with in change of money. The worker should have the right to withdraw from the work or go on strike in case of any disagreement. According to Davidmann, “The extent to which the right to strike is acknowledged and supported by a government’s enacted legislation states clearly the extent to which its political philosophy and policies are authoritarian, class-biased and oppressive and the extent to which the working population can be subjected to oppression and exploitation through need,” The right to strike and the extent at which people go on strike are some of the fundamental rights and freedoms that define a participative government from an authoritarian one. Most countries in Europe have enshrined the right to strike and it is under protection of a written constitution. Unite Kingdom has no written constitution and the right to strike has not been protected.

The current legislation in United Kingdom considers any striker as a law breaker. The system defines highlights the action is breaking of an employment contract and all the strikers may be sacked without any compensation. Lack of protection is applied regardless of source of the strike. In occasion where the employer is the cause of a workplace dispute, the workforce will be held responsible for breach of contract. Workers can be dismissed without compensation, lose redundancy payments, disqualified from benefits related to unemployment, and without notice for unfair dismissal. The right of worker to withdraw their services is guaranteed in several international treaties. Novitz states that,” mounting awareness that modern erosion of democratic participation and human rights protection, including provision for workers’ rights, necessitates greater co-ordination between international and European organizations and combined action” Different approaches to strike regulation at different levels can be problematic, she points out, “to the extent that regional organizations have the capacity to undermine the authority and application of global minimum standards “. Such disparities “can make national laws relating to industrial action, even those complying with ILO standards, vulnerable to the application of other EC treaty provisions or directives, such as those relating to free movement of goods or barriers to competition.”

The right of worker to go in strike has been justified in number of grounds and recognizing strikes as a fundamental human right is the most important. Right to strikes should be described and treated to be part of the complementary freedom from forced labor and slavery. Most worker in different organization may be suffering and working in unhealthy environments but afraid to raise their concerns. Extreme freedom denial is a form of being forced to work against the better judgement of an individual. On the other hand, Morris states that, within this framework the collective withholding of labor is a vital weapon in an economic conflict which imposes cost in both parties: disrupted production on the one hand, lost wages on the other.” The right to recourse should be considered as an industrial concept and action that should be used for collective bargaining. The idea is supported by Lord wright who stated that, “The right to strike as “an essential element in the principle of collective bargaining.” According to, “the reality is that the right has been derived by the supervisory bodies from general freedom of association principles; the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has consistently affirmed that this is one of the essential and legitimate means by which workers and their organizations may promote and defend their economic and social interests and, as such it is an integral part of the free exercise of the rights guaranteed by Conventions 87 and 98. On the basis of this view they have developed an extensive jurisprudence as to what this right entails.” The right to strike has gained protection in International levels only on its treaties that deal with social economic rights rather than political and social rights.