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Under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, thousands of EU-derived provisions will be repealed from the end of 2023 except those the government has taken positive action to save.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

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll