header-logo header-logo

Employee rights could disappear under retained EU law Bill

16 November 2022
Issue: 8003 / Categories: Legal News , EU , Employment , Brexit
printer mail-detail
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Under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, thousands of EU-derived provisions will be repealed from the end of 2023 except those the government has taken positive action to save.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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll