header-logo header-logo

Brexit risks for workers

27 February 2019
Issue: 7830 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Brexit
printer mail-detail
Employment lawyers warn of ‘significant impact’ of loss of EU guidance

Uncertainty about the interpretation of EU case law post-Brexit is threatening workers’ rights, employment lawyers have warned.

With just one month to go until the UK’s departure, questions remain as to how courts and tribunals will interpret case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the Employment Lawyers Association (ELA) said this week in a paper, Brexit: CJEU. Post-Brexit, UK courts may have regard to CJEU case law but will not be bound by it.

‘Perhaps of greatest significance will be the loss of the preliminary reference mechanism,’ the ELA paper warns.

‘These will be referrals made by domestic courts and tribunals seeking guidance on the application of EU law… If such guidance is not available, then, whilst the court or tribunal will still be likely to reach a decision, it is arguable that such a decision will be deficient, or will be seen to be deficient, because of the fact that guidance was clearly required but not supplied.’

Paul McFarlane, chair of ELA’s legislative and policy committee, said: ‘There have been a number of seminal employment law cases where the guidance of the CJEU has been particularly significant, for instance, Lock v British Gas Trading Limited, which dealt with the application of the Working Time Directive to holiday pay calculations, or Dekker v Stichting, which simplified the tests that a woman complaining of pregnancy discrimination needs to satisfy.

‘The loss of such guidance will have a significant impact upon UK employment law.’

The ELA also expressed doubt about the practicalities of the government’s proposals to ensure UK workers’ rights keep pace with those of EU workers.

Meanwhile, the government published a document this week, Implications for business and trade of a no deal exit. For lawyers, it states, no-deal would mean ‘the loss of the automatic right to provide short term “fly in fly out” services, as the type of work lawyers can do in each individual member state may vary, and the loss of rights of audience in EU courts. UK lawyers and businesses would be responsible for ensuring they can operate in each Member State they want to work in.’

Issue: 7830 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Brexit
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll