header-logo header-logo

16 November 2022
Issue: 8003 / Categories: Legal News , EU , Employment , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Employee rights could disappear under retained EU law Bill

Lawyers have aired more concerns about the government’s controversial EU laws bonfire Bill, warning it will create chaos for business, deter investment and decimate employee rights.

Under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, thousands of EU-derived provisions will be repealed from the end of 2023 except those the government has taken positive action to save.

The Employment Lawyers Association (ELA), comprising 6,000 lawyers, has highlighted that the Bill will strip away rights covering equal pay, maximum working hours, TUPE, health and safety, shared parental leave and the rights of part-time and fixed-term workers.

The Bill would erase principles derived from EU law, such as direct effect, supremacy of EU law and general principles of EU law. The ELA warns this will abolish important rights, including the right to normal pay during holidays, as well as removing the legal reasoning that has helped give gig economy workers protection from discrimination.

The ELA says the Bill potentially ends the automatic transfer provisions under TUPE, which would mean the UK reverting to the pre-1 May 1982 position of the transfer automatically terminating employment contracts.

Paul McFarlane, chair of the ELA, said: ‘The chaos, ambiguity and potential damage this Bill could do should not be underestimated.

‘It will decimate workers’ rights and leave both employers and employees in a state of profound uncertainty. Businesses will struggle to plan for growth, investment will drop and disputes and litigation costs will rocket.

‘It is also deeply worrying how this Bill will likely impact women specifically, as many of our laws which govern issues such as equal pay, parental leave and rights for part-time workers will be affected, and rights will disappear altogether.’

The ELA said it doubted the 31 December 2023 deadline gave the government enough time to consider the many laws, regulations and interpretive principles involved.

Issue: 8003 / Categories: Legal News , EU , Employment , Brexit
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll