Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-24T16:23:59.179Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Human Rights: Implications for Labour Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2000

Stephanie Palmer
Stephanie Palmer*
Affiliation:
Girton College, Cambridge
Get access

Extract

The author considers the potential of the Human Rights Act to influence the future of labour law. First, the development of common law can be based on fundamental human rights principles. Statutory interpretation of employment legislation can also be grounded on this potentially more principled approach. Second, the new legislation may hasten the development of a common law of privacy and provide greater protection for expression of political and religious views in the employment context. Third, it changes the criteria against which the propriety of restrictions in the employment relationship should be judged. It is likely that in judicial review cases the more rigorous proportionality standard rather than the Wednesbury unreasonableness test will be used. Finally, the effective application of human rights in the private sphere is likely since the Convention case-law, the debates in Parliament and the Act itself strongly suggest that the Convention rights will have an indirect effect. The domestic courts must take the opportunity to develop their own human rights standards.

Type
Articles
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 59 , Issue 1 , March 2000 , pp. 168 - 200
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This paper was originally presented to the SPTL Conference (Labour Law section) at Manchester in September 1998. I would like to thank the Arts and Research Humanities Board for supporting my research. Bob Hepple made helpful comments on an earlier draft and I have also benefited from conversations with Keith Ewing. The usual disclaimers apply.

References

1 HL Deb. vol. 583 col. 1228 (3 November 1997).

2 Human Rights Act, s. 2. See comments by K. Ewing, “The Human Rights Act and Parliamentary Democracy” (1999) 62 M.L.R. 79, 85-86.

3 See D. Oliver, “Common Values in Public and Private Law and the Public/Private Divide” [1997] P.L. 630; P. Davies and M. Freedland, “The Impact of Public Law on Labour Law” (1997) 26 I.L.J. 311.

4 Deakin, S., “The Utility of ‘Rights Talk’: Employees’ Personal Rights” in Understanding Human Rights, edited by Gearty, & Tomkins, (Mansell, London 1996) pp. 357–379 at p. 357Google Scholar.

5 Note that the First Protocol includes the right to education, the only social and economic right in the ECHR.

6 See e.g., Ahmad v. UK (1981) 4 E.H.R.R. 126, Stedman v. UK (1997) 23 E.H.R.R. 168 and Council for Civil Service v. UK (1988) 10 E.H.R.R. 269.

7 The European Community can specifically draw upon fundamental social rights such as those in the European Social Charter 1961 and the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers 1989 (accepted by the UK in 1997). See Articles 136-150 E.C. Treaty. Article 136 expressly refers to the E.S.C. 1961 and the 1989 Community Social Charter. See C. Barnard, “The United Kingdom, the ‘Social Chapter’ and the Amsterdam Treaty” (1997) I.L.J. 275; Hepple, B., “The Impact on Labour Law” in Markesinis, B.S. (ed.) The Impact of the Human Rights Bill on English Law (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1998) pp. 77–78Google Scholar.

8 See J. Griffith, “Who will Referee the Refs?” The Times Literary Supplement (25 September 1998) pp. 13-14. There will be no specialist court dealing with human rights issues. There is likely to be more debate about judicial appointments especially as there is a lack of transparency in the appointment process.

9 See Young James & Webster v. UK (1982) 4 E.H.R.R. 38. The closed shop trade union cases have exposed the tension between the collective governance framework and the individual rights perspective. See also K. Syrett, “‘Immunity', ‘Privilege', and ‘Right': British Trade Unions and the Language of Labour Law Reform” (1998) 25 Journal of Law and Society 388.

10 See K. Ewing, “The Human Rights Act and Labour Law” [1998] I.L.J. 275. Ewing argues that the overall impact of the Human Rights Act on labour law may be very limited.

11 HC Deb. vol. 312 col. 981 (20 May 1998).

12 HL Deb. vol. 583 col. 475 (18 November 1997). Note Human Rights Act 1998, s. 2.

13 Human Rights Act 1998, s. 3.

14 See G. Morris, “The Human Rights Act and the Public/Private Divide in Employment Law” (1998) 27 I.L.J. 293, 294.

15 Human Rights Act 1998, s. 4.

16 Human Rights Act 1998, s. 4(a).

17 Human Rights Act 1998, s. 10.

18 Human Rights Act 1998, s. 6(3) (a) and (b). The House of Lords when acting in a judicial capacity would be considered a public authority for the purposes of section 6(3). See Human Rights Act 1998, s. 6(4).

19 HL Deb. vol. 582, col 1232 (3 November 1997). There is no list of public authorities. See Rights Brought Home: The Human Rights Bill Cm. 3782 (1997) at para. 2.2.

20 HC Deb. vol. 314, col. 409 (17 June 1998).

21 Ibid. cols 410-411. See also the comments of the Lord Chancellor. HL Deb. vol. 583 cols. 810-811.

22 HL Deb vol. 583, col. 811 (24 November, 1997).

23 See N. Bamforth, (1999) “Public Authorities, Private Bodies and the Human Rights Act” 58 C.L.J. 159. Compare also the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice e.g. case C-188/ 89 Foster v. British Gas plc [1990] E.C.R. I—3313.

24 HC Deb. vol. 314 col. 409 (17 June 1998).

25 See e.g. R. v. Panel on Take-Overs and Mergers, ex p. Datafin [1987] Q.B. 815; R. v. Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregation, ex p. Wachmann [1992] 1 W.L.R. 1036; R. v. Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex p. Massingberd-Mundy [1993] 2 All E.R. 207; R. v. Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex p. Aga Khan [1993] 1 W.L.R. 909; R. v. Football Association, ex p. Football League [1993] 2 All E.R. 833. See also N. Bamforth op. cit. n. 23 above and G.S. Morris, op. cit. n. 14 above.

26 R. v. East Berkshire Health Authority, ex p. Walsh [1985] Q.B. 152; R. v. BBC, ex p. Lavelle [1983] I.C.R. 99 and R. v. Derbyshire County Council, ex p. Noble [1990] I.C.R. 808.

27 HL Debs. vol. 583 col. 812 (24 November 1997). See also K. Ewing, “The Human Rights Act and Labour Law” (1998) I.L.J. 275, at 285-286.

28 See for example, R. v. Crown Prosecution Service, ex p. Hogg [1994] 6 Admin. L.R. 778 and see B. Hepple, op. cit. n. 7 above pp. 79-80.

29 McLaren v. The Home Office [1990] I.R.L.R. 338 and Council for the Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] A.C. 374. See also R. v. Home Secretary, ex p. Benwell [1985] Q.B. 554.

30 (1998) I.L.J 293 at 302.

31 Ibid. She is relying on the comments of Woolf L.J. (as he then was) in McLaren v. The Home Office [1990] I.R.L.R. 338.

32 Ibid.

33 See R. v. Fernhill Manor School, ex p. Brown (1993) 5 Admin. L.R. 159, 175. This section draws upon S. Palmer, “The Human Rights Act 1998: Bringing Rights Home” (1999) 1 Cambridge Yearbook of European Law 125.

34 (1993) 19 E.H.R.R. 112, para 27. N. Bamforth, op. cit. n. 23 above.

35 See also the discussion of the positive obligation on the member states to secure Convention rights at pp. 179-181 below.

36 See Scuderi v. Italy (1993) A 265-A (civil servant) and Darnell v. United Kingdom (1993) A 272 (health service employee).

37 [1979-80] 1 E.H.R.R. 617 paras. 36 and 37.

38 Ibid. at para. 37. G.S. Morris, op. cit. n. 14 above at pp. 305-306.

39 (1987) 9 E.H.R.R. 328.

40 (1987) 9 E.H.R.R. 25.

41 Kosiek, para. 39 and Glasenapp, para. 53.

42 Gomien, , Harris, and Zwaak, , Law and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Social Charter (Council of Europe, Strasbourg 1996), p. 298Google Scholar.

43 (1996) 21 E.H.R.R. 205. See p. 193 below for further discussion.

44 Vogt, para. 60.

45 The same conclusion is reached by G. Morris, “The European Convention on Human Rights and Employment: To Which Acts Does it Apply?” [1999] 5 E.H.R.L.R. 496, 499-500.

46 HL Deb. vol. 585 col. 840 (5 February 1998) (Lord Irvine of Lairg).

47 Wade, H.R.W., “The United Kingdom's Bill of Rights” in Constitutional Reform in the United Kingdom: Practice and Principles (Cambridge Centre for Public Law, Hart Publishing, Oxford 1998)Google Scholar. See also M. Hunt, “The ‘Horizontal Effect’ of the Human Rights Act” [1998] P.L. 423 and N. Bamforth, op. cit. n. 23 above.

48 HC Deb. vol. 313 col. 422 (3 June 1998). It may be helpful to draw an analogy with EU law. In Case C-168/95 Criminal Proceedings against Luciano Arcaro [1996] E.C.R. I-4705 it was held that where a Directive covers the same field as domestic law, a court should not distort the meaning of the legislation.

49 See e.g. Derbyshire County Council v. Times Newspapers Ltd. [1992] Q.B. 770 (Court of Appeal). The House of Lords came to the same conclusion, although their Lordships did not consider that it was necessary to base their judgement on the Convention. See also A.G. v. Guardian Newspapers [1987] 1 W.L.R. 1248 ( per Lord Templeman).

50 [1993] 4 All E.R. 975.

51 [1993] I.C.R. 612.

52 Section 6(3) appears to go further in ensuring horizontal effect than either the Canadian or South African approaches. See M. Hunt, op. cit. n. 47 above, p. 441.

53 HL Deb. vol. 583 col. 783 (24 November 1997). Compare what he said in HL Deb. vol. 585 col. 840 (5 February 1998).

54 HL Deb. vol. 583 col. 785 (24 November 1997).

55 Articles 2, 3, 5, 8 and 11.

56 There is no duty imposed on the domestic courts to follow these decisions but the individual petition to Strasbourg remains. Note the omission of Articles 1 and 13 discussed above. See discussion of N. Bamforth, [1999] C.L.J. 159, 167-168.

57 (1979) 2 E.H.R.R. 330. Harris, D.J., O'Boyle, M. and Warbrick, C., Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (Butterworths, London 1995) 19–22Google Scholar.

58 (1982) 4 E.H.R.R. 38.

59 See also X & Y v. Netherlands (1986) 8 E.H.R.R. 235; Plattform “Artzte fur das Leben” v. Austria (1988) 13 E.H.R.R. 204; Mrs. W v. UK (1983) 32 D. R. 190 and McCann v. UK (1996) 21 E.H.R.R. 97 (right to life in Article 2 gives rise to positive obligation upon the state); Guerra v. Italy (1998) 4 B.H.R.C. 63 (toxic emissions from a chemical factory imposed a positive obligation on the state to ensure effective respect for private and family life under Article 8); A v. UK (1998) 5 B.H.R.C. 137 (violation of Article 3 for failing to provide adequate legal safeguards for children punished by their parents).

60 Jacobs, and White, , European Convention on Human Rights, 2nd ed, (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1996) pp. 18–19Google Scholar. See Alkema, , “Third-Party Applicability or ‘Drittwirkung’ of the European Convention on Human Rights” in Matscher, F. & Petzold, H. (eds.) Protecting Human Rights: The European Dimension (Carl Heymanns Verlag KG, 1998)Google Scholar.

61 See Alkema, ibid.; Craig and Oliver, “The Right to Privacy in the Public Workplace: Should the Private Sector be Concerned?” (1998) 27 I.L.J. 49, at 52. Such a power inequality can be discerned in the recent decision of Guerra v. Italy (1998) 4 B.H.R.C. 63.

62 See Kaye (1990) 18 F.S.R. 62. But see the comments of Laws J. in Hellewell v. Chief Constable of Derbyshire [1995] 1 W.L.R. 804 at 807.

63 Compare with Halford v. UK (1997) 25 E.H.R.R.523 (concerned an employee and telephone tapping in the public sector).

64 Sir W. Wade, op. cit. n. 40 above, at pp. 62-64. See also A. Clapham, “The Privatisation of Human Rights” [1995] E.H.R.L.R. 20.

65 See e.g. R. v. R. (Rape: Marital Exemption) [1992] 1 A.C. 599; Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland [1993] A.C. 789.

66 Grosz, , Beatson, and Duffy, , Human Rights: the 1998 Act and the European Convention (Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2000), pp 4–51Google Scholar.

67 G.S. Morris, (1998) 27 I.L.J. 293 at 307.

68 [1997] I.R.L.R. 462.

69 Hepple, “Human Rights and Employment Law”, Amicus Curiae (8 June 1998) pp. 19-23, at p. 22. Note the problem of contracting out of convention rights. See discussion at p. 194 below.

70 HL Deb vol. 583, col. 811 (24 November 1997).

71 Sir William Wade, op. cit. n. 47 above, at p. 63.

72 This is the conclusion reached by Sir William Wade, ibid.

73 K. Ewing, “The Human Rights Act and Labour Law” (1998) I.L.J. 275, 286-287.

74 See above pp. 175-177.

75 See Equal Opportunities Commission v. Secretary of State for Employment [1994] 1 W.L.R. 404, R. v. H.M. Inspector of Pollution ex p. Greenpeace Ltd. (No. 2) [1994] 4 All E.R. 329 and R. v. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, ex p. World Development Movement Ltd. [1995] 1 W.L.R. 386.

76 Spencer, S. and Bynoe, I., A Human Rights Commission: The Options for Britain and Northern Ireland (Institute of Public Policy Research, London 1998)Google Scholar.

77 S. Sedley, “What's to be Done about Human Rights?” (1995) 17 London Review of Books 13, 15.

78 Stedman v. UK (1997) 23 E.H.R.R. 168 (Commission decision).

79 See Kosiek v. Germany (1986) 9 E.H.R.R. 328 and Neigel v. France (unreported) [1997] E.H.R.L.R. 424.

80 For a detailed discussion of these issues see G. Morris, op. cit. n. 45 above, at pp. 507-511

81 App. No. 30976/96.

82 [1997] E.H.R.L.R. 424, at para. 43.

83 G. Morris, op. cit. n. 45 above, at p. 511.

84 See Hepple, op. cit. n. 7 above, at pp. 64-66.

85 See Belgium Linguistics Case (No. 2) (1968) 1 E.H.R.R. 252; Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland (1995) 21 E.H.R.R. 404 (Article 14 was used successfully to challenge discriminatory or stereotypical assumptions). See also Fredman, S., “Equality Issues” in Markesinis, B.S. (ed.) The Impact of the Human Rights Bill on English Law (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1998) 111Google Scholar.

86 See Draft Protocol No. 12 ECHR.

87 In Article 8(2) the relevant criteria is whether the State pursued a “legitimate aim”.

88 See Malone v. UK (1985) 7 E.H.R.R. 14.

89 Harris, O'Boyle and Warbrick, op. cit. n. 57 at p. 291.

90 Handyside v. UK (1976) 1 E.H.R.R. 737 at 753. See “The Doctrine of the Margin of Appreciation under the European Convention on Human Rights: Its Legitimacy in Theory and Application in Practice” (1998) 19 Human Rights L.J. 1-36.

91 Lord Lester of Herne Hill Q.C., “The European Convention on Human Rights in the New Architecture of Europe: General Report”, Proceedings of the 8th International Colloquy on the European Convention on Human Rights (Council of Europe, 1995), 227 at p. 237.

92 Sir J. Laws, “The Limitations of Human Rights” [1998] P.L. 254, 258.

93 See R. Singh, M. Hunt and M. Demetriou, “Is There a Role for the ‘Margin of Appreciation’ in National Law after the Human Rights Act?” [1999] 1 E.H.R.L.R. 15.

94 See R. v. Ministry of Defence, ex p. Smith [1996] Q.B. 517.

95 D. Feldman, “The Developing Scope of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights” [1997] E.H.R.L.R. 265.

96 Ibid., at p. 273.

97 (1992) Series A 251-B Para. 29.

98 (1979) 16 D.R. 166.

99 [1977] I.R.L.R. 395 (EAT).

100 Clayton and Pitt, “Dress Codes and Freedom of Expression” [1997] E.H.R.L.R. 54 at p.60.

101 See S. Deakin, op. cit. n. 4 above, at p. 365 quoting from Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd. v. Jones [1983] I.C.R. 17.

102 Note also Cass. Soc., 12 Janvier 1999, arrêt no 162 (concerning an employee who was required to transfer his home for employment purposes).

103 Malone v. UK (1985) 7 E.H.R.R. 14 and Halford v. UK (1997) 25 E.H.R.R. 523.

104 Niemietz v. Germany (1993) 16 E.H.R.R. 97.

105 Harris, O'Boyle and Warbrick, op. cit. n. 57 above, at p. 320.

106 Note also the effect of The Data Protection Act 1998 that comes into force in March 2000. Although this Act is based upon the EU Data Protection Directive, the Government has explicitly stated that the legislation draws upon Article 8 of the Convention. See Data Protection Cm. 3725 (1997) paras 1.6-1.7.

107 HL Deb. vol. 582 col. 1230 (3 November 1997).

108 The European Court has held that the deportation of an individual with AIDS/HIV to a country where he would receive no medical care is a violation of Article 3. See D v. United Kingdom (1997) 24 E.H.R.R. 423.

109 Case C-404/92P [1995] I.R.L.R. 320, ECJ.

110 See Watts, “The Legal Protection of HIV-Positive Health Care Workers” [1998] E.H.R.L.R. 302.

111 Saunders v. Scottish National Camps Association [1980] I.R.L.R. 174, (EAT). See also Grant v. SouthWest Trains, Case C-249/96. The ECJ held that the Article 141 (then Article 119) and the Equal pay Directive did not require an employer to provide the same free travel benefits to the partner of a same sex couple.

112 Dudgeon v. UK (1982) 4 E.H.R.R. 149.

113 See e.g. X and Y v. UK (1983) 5 E.H.R.R. 601. See the House of Lords recent decision of Fitzpatrick v. Sterling Housing Association Ltd. (1999) 7 B.H.R.C. 200.

114 D. Feldman, (1997), op. cit. n. 95 above, at p. 273.

115 App. Nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96.

116 See R. v. Ministry of Defence, ex p. Smith [1996] Q.B. 517.

117 R. Wintemute “Lesbian and Gay Britons, the Two Europes, and the Bill of Rights Debate” (1997) 6 E.H.R.L.R. 466.

118 See Sutherland v. UK (1997) 24 E.H.R.R. (CD) 22. The applicant argued that Articles 14 and 8 had been violated. The Commission declared the application admissible.

119 Harris, O'Boyle and Warbrick, op. cit. n. 57 above at p. 370.

120 Arrowsmith v. UK (1978) 19 D.R. 5.

121 See S. Poulter, “The Rights of Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities” [1997] 3 E.H.R.L.R. 254.

122 (1990) 65 D.R. 41, 45.

123 [1978] Q.B. 36.

124 Ahmad v. UK (1981) 4 E.H.R.R. 126.

125 Ibid., para. 27.

126 Fredman, S., “Equality Issues” in Makesinis, B. (ed.), The Impact of the Human Rights Bill on English Law (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1998)Google Scholar.

127 Poulter, , Ethnicity, Law and Human Rights (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1998) at p. 34Google Scholar.

128 (1997) 23 E.H.R.R. (CD) 168.

129 Ibid. p. 169.

130 In Case C84/94 UK v. Council [1996] I.R.L.R. 30, the ECJ struck down a proviso in the Working Time Directive which stipulated Sundays as the day of rest.

131 Harris, O'Boyle and Warbrick, op cit n. 57 above.

132 See above, at pp. 175-177.

133 (1996) 21 E.H.R.R. 205. Compare Kosiek v. Germany (1986) 9 E.H.R.R. 328 and Glasenapp v. Germany (1986) 9 E.H.R.R. 25.

134 [1999] I.R.L.R. 188.

135 Ibid.

136 G. Morris, “The Political Activities of Local Government Workers and the European Convention of Human Rights” [1999] P.L. 211, 215-216.

137 Stevens v. UK (1986) 46 D. R. 247.

138 (1988) 56 D. R. 127.

139 (1989) 62 D.R. 151. (Doctor employed by Catholic hospital dismissed for making statements on abortion.)

140 Bowers and Lewis, “Whistleblowing: Freedom of Expression in the Workplace” [1996] E.H.R.L.R. 637.

141 Note Human Rights Act, s. 12 concerning injunctions and freedom of expression.

142 But see Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, s. 43J.

143 Public Interest Disclosure Act inserts Part 1VA into the Employment Rights Act 1996.

144 Employment Rights Act 1996, s. 43B.

145 Ibid., s. 103A.

146 Ibid., s. 47B.

147 Bowers and Lewis, op. cit. n. 140 above.

148 See Jacobs and White, European Convention on Human Rights (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1996) p. 235. See Jacubowski v. Germany (1995) 19 E.H.R.R. 64.

149 Ewing, op. cit. n. 10 above, at p. 279.

150 The European Court referred to the Social Charter in Dahlstrom v. Sweden (1976) 1 E.H.R.R. 632, 644 para. 36. The Commission took into account articles 3 and 5 of the ILO Convention No. 87 in Cheall v. UK (1985) 42 D.R. 178. But it failed to refer to the ILO Conventions in Council of Civil Service Unions v. UK (1987) 50 D.R. 228.

151 Plattform “Arzte fur das Leben” v. Austria (1985) 44 D.R. 65, 72.

152 National Union of Belgian Police v. Belgium Series (1975) 1 E.H.R.R. 578.

153 Ibid.

154 Swedish Engine Drivers’ Union v. Sweden (1975) 1 E.H.R.R. 617.

155 Ibid.

156 (1975) 1 E.H.R.R. 578.

157 Harris, O'Boyle and Warbrick, op. cit. n. 57 above, at p. 429.

158 (1975) 1 E.H.R.R. 637.

159 Harris, O'Boyle and Warbrick, op. cit. n. 57 above, at p. 430.

160 Ewing, op. cit. n. 10 above, at p. 280

161 (1981) 4 E.H.R.R. 38.

162 (1993) 17 E.H.R.R. 193.

163 Harris, O'Boyle and Warbrick, op. cit. n. 57 above, at p. 427.

164 (1993) 16 E.H.R.R. 462.

165 (1996) 22 E.H.R.R. 409.

166 Council for Civil Service v. UK (1988) 10 E.H.R.R. 269.

167 Harris, O'Boyle and Warbrick, op. cit. n. 57 above, at p. 431.

168 Wilson and Palmer v. UK Applications Nos. 30668, 30671, 30678/96.

169 Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Wilson [1995] 2 A.C. 454.

170 See comments by K. Ewing, (1998) I.L.J. 275, 291.