Talk:British labour law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] (From anonymous 195.93.21.102)
I'm new to wikipedia - and I think it's great! I will look into getting an account so I can participate properly.
[edit] Re.'Employment Law' article
My edits. They were not meant to be wide of the mark (they were over the status of EAT decisions - apologies!) but I did feel the article was very brief at that stage, so added what I considered to be accurate and relevant. I can see that the section on unfair dismissal is improving steadily but in the process it is beginning to take over and becoming an article in itself.
What has not been included: Alternatives to compensation awards (re-engagement, reinstatement, orders made, additional awards made in lieu if employer disregards - which they can, enforcement not being the same thing as judgment, difficulties getting compensation paid etc etc). Even though 'uncommon' these possible outcomes ought to be mentioned for completeness somewhere, I feel.
What about the extending the current references to the 'main Acts', should this not also include Equal Pay, Sex Discrimination - indeed a 'list of tribunal juridictions' as all fall under 'Employment Law' [UK] and are concerned with much more wide ranging issues affecting the development of law are they not?
There are no references (eg to the legislation itself): One could start with a new article here ('Employment Rights Act 1996'?) describing what's in it and link from the current article to there. Other Acts could be described in this way. Alternatively, maybe the DTi.gov site could be used to provide links to the legislation instead, and a 'Wiki' (entitled 'Employment Legislation [UK]'?)could simply 'summarise' what the DTi says about these Acts and link to individual DTi pages in each 'section' concerned with a given Act. In this way the range of Employment laws could be presented quite concisely without the reader having to leave the article, unnecessarily
(On how to produce precise effects on pages: I appreciate that one way to see how this is done is to click on 'edit' and study the raw text (without changing anything!) of random or 'interesting' looking pages)
Thank you for your edifications..
Regards. Paul White
[edit] 'References' added
As you can see I've now got an account. I've added what I think are two helpful links to one of the DTi's comprehensive online guides covering the 'two stage' description of UD in the preceding section. I didn't know if referencing from the body like this is allowed, but it looks the right thing to do to me!
Regards. Paul White
[edit] Maximum Compensatory award
I have edited the maximum compensatory award to reflect the figure applying from 1/2/05 £56,800 Source: http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/pay/limits-pl827b.htm#5
Regards Amica
[edit] Concerning the latest chanages to the UK employment law bit:
I think that the description of the 'process' at tribunal now has got a bit long and over descriptive. And the phrasing is a bit odd. We are now referring to a 'claimant' bringing a case and later an 'employee' being judged in relation to the case.
eg "Except where no qualifying time limit applies (as in the case of 'statutory rights') an employee needs to have worked for their employer for a least a year in order to make a complaint of unfair dismissal to an employment tribunal. In addition, a claimant may raise a complaint of discrimination without claiming dismissal or whilst also claiming dismissal but without one year of service."
Some references like: "after the ET3 response form has gone in" and "after the EDT and before the tribunal hearing." would seem to need some attention.
[What's an 'EDT' for instance?]
Also, where is now says
"Most tribunal offices however write to the claimant upon receipt of their claim form telling them that they have 14 days to show why their claim should be heard, otherwise the chairman will strike out the claim."
This sort of remark begs the question "Do they?". If you look at what this is saying it could be interpreted as meaning that tribunals write to people "most of the time, but not always" in such circumstances as a "service" rather than a requirement. Since everything a tribunal does is "judicable" they don't just write to anyone on a whim. There must be a reason in every case. This statement may be generally accurate but needs qualifying as it stands.
As I say it is now a bit 'wordy' and could do with some fileting. But I'm not going to fiddle with. I'll leave that the source or to others
Bye, bye! [Paul]
[edit] More Edits and change of title suggestion
Two minor edits: I have mentioned the statutory dispute resolution procedure and that the statutory cap does not apply to discrimination claims. Although the entry is looking very good, I think there is more work to be done. As the entry grows, it may be better to increase the breadth of the entry rather than its depth: for example Tribunal procedure and unfair dismissal might occupy their own pages in time.
The main body of the entry is about a specific aspect of Employment law: i.e. the issues arising out of the termination of employment. For my money an entry entitled 'British Labour Law' would benefit by dealing with the history of its development, its sources, the areas it covers, the institutions that affect it (eg trade unions, the EU, ILO etc.) and its future.
I recommend that the parts of this entry dealing with termination of employment should be sub-catorgorised as 'termination of employment' or something similar under the main banner of British Labour Law.
ravells
- I notice that there has been a change in title to "British Labour Law". Almost no-one in England and Wales (and I doubt anyone anywhere else in the UK), uses "Labour Law" in this way. "Employment Law" is almost universal now. Why the change? Why not change to the more normal term? Francis Davey 23:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merger
Please discuss the potential merger on the talk page of labour law. Thanks - Breadandroses 21:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
some basic information seems to be missing. Who are the judges or jury on an industrial tribunal, and how are they chosen ?
( In France they are elected by workers and by bosses) JM
[edit] Under-payment of wages & the law
If an employer intentionally consistently under-pays its workers, presenting the amount of wages paid as the correct amount (e.g. by reducing hours on wage slip or miscalculating) when the correct wages would be higher, is that a crime? I assume it is a crime- but what crime would it be? And who deals with that: OFT? Revenue? N-edits 16:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] British labour law and application in football/soccer
As you can see, there are cases where football clubs apply for work permit for some of its non-EU players. I heard somewhere about having played 70% of international games and the national team being on the top 70 of the FIFA rankings. Is there an article on this, or has it been added and deleted?
219.74.58.195 18:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
