header-logo header-logo

Forty years of IRLR

02 November 2012 / Michael Rubenstein
Issue: 7536 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Michael Rubenstein reflects on the employment law changes he has witnessed since 1972

Industrial Relations Law Reports (IRLR) is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year. I have had the honour of editing it from the start. The very phrase “industrial relations” is now anachronistic, but although the context is now very different, most of our core employment legislation has its origins in the 1970s, as does the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

EAT

EAT decisions have formed the heart of IRLR since the court began sitting in 1976. In the early days, it was inevitable that EAT judges would have little background in employment law, let alone the emerging area of discrimination law. In the case of Sir Gordon Slynn and Sir Nicolas Browne-Wilkinson, this was of little consequence - both were brilliant lawyers. The policy for many years of rotating the EAT presidency between judges from the Family, Chancery and Queen’s Bench Division was not appropriate, however.

In contrast, all the EAT presidents from Mr Justice Morison onwards in 1997 appear

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Partner hire bolstersprivate capital and global aviation finance offering

Morae—Carla Mendy

Morae—Carla Mendy

Digital and business solutions firm appoints chief operating officer

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Set welcomes two experienced juniors as new tenants

NEWS
The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition
Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ 
The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ
In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof
back-to-top-scroll