header-logo header-logo

20 February 2023
Categories: Legal News , Human rights , EU , Employment
printer mail-detail

LNB NEWS: JCHR invites evidence for inquiry into human rights protection at work

The Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) has opened an inquiry looking into the manner in which rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights are protected and upheld in workplaces across the UK. 

Lexis®Library update: It has invited written evidence on a series of questions relating to topics such as freedom of association and right to strike, the right to privacy, freedom of thought conscience and religion, labour market exploitation, retained EU Law, and international human rights treaties. The inquiry was launched on 10 February 2023 and will accept evidence until 24 March 2023. The JCHR has made it clear that this inquiry is separate from its legislative scrutiny of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill.

The questions (and question heads) are as follows:

Freedom of association and the right to strike

• does the current law effectively protect the rights of trade unions and workers to take industrial action under Article 11 ECHR? Does the law effectively protect the right to strike for the purposes of other international human rights instruments, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Labour Organisation Conventions?

The right to privacy and surveillance at work

• what forms of surveillance, if any, that are used to monitor workers raise concerns under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to private and family life)? Are there any associated concerns under Article 14 (freedom from discrimination)?

• what is the legal framework in the UK that governs surveillance in the workplace?

• where surveillance is used to monitor workers, does the current legal framework adequately protect their Article 8 right to private and family life? If not, what changes need to be made to ensure it does?

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion and freedom of expression in the workplace

• does domestic law strike the right balance between workers’ Article 9 right to freedom of religion or belief and the rights of employers? If not, what changes are needed?

• does domestic law strike the right balance between workers’ Article 10 right to freedom of expression and the rights of employers? If not, what changes are needed?

• does domestic law provide adequate protection for the rights of workers to be free from harassment at work by third parties on account of their religion or beliefs? 

Labour market exploitation

• what is the current legal and policy framework for tackling labour exploitation in the UK? Is that framework effective to protect workers’ rights under Article 4 ECHR, which prohibits slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour?

• are there any improvements that could be made to better tackle exploitative labour practices which are contrary to Article 4 in the UK?

• do workers from particular groups or in precarious employment disproportionately experience labour market exploitation? Does this raise concerns under Article 14 ECHR (freedom from discrimination)?

Retained EU Law and workers’ rights

• to what extent is the UK's compliance with its human rights obligations, in relation to the protection of workers, currently dependent on retained EU law?

International human rights treaties

• does the UK effectively comply with its international obligations to protect workers’ rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights, and International Labour Organisation Conventions? If not, what improvements should be made?

Those wishing to provide written evidence may do so via this link. The JCHR has also included a guide for those submitting written evidence, available here.

Sources:

• Inquiry launched into human rights at work

• Inquiry: Human Rights at Work

This content was first published by LNB News / Lexis®Library, a LexisNexis® company, on 17 February 2023 and is published with permission. Further information can be found at: www.lexisnexis.co.uk.

Categories: Legal News , Human rights , EU , Employment
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