Extracts from Lords consideration of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Protection from Detriment in Health and Safety Cases) (Amendment) Order 2021 - Apr 27
Wednesday, 28 April 2021 08:17
Lord Hendy (Lab) [V]: My Lords, I join the applause for the
Minister and the Government for introducing this statutory
instrument, but the Government need to go further than this limited
extension of rights. They should also remedy the unjustifiable
exclusion of various classifications of workers for other key
rights. A worker’s legal status determines the suite of rights to
which she is entitled. Many employers seek to arrange for their
workers the status to which the fewest rights...Request free trial
(Lab) [V]: My Lords, I join the applause for the Minister
and the Government for introducing this statutory instrument, but
the Government need to go further than this limited extension of
rights. They should also remedy the unjustifiable exclusion of
various classifications of workers for other key rights. A worker’s
legal status determines the suite of rights to which she is
entitled. Many employers seek to arrange for their workers the
status to which the fewest rights attach—hence the profusion of
litigation, most recently in Uber and in the case brought by the
IWGB as to what the status of given
workers is. The law on workers’ status is both complex and
illogical, a situation that benefits only employers and
lawyers...
(Con):...My noble friend asked about government plans to ensure
the change is publicised. We have plans to engage organisations to
publicise the amendment and help businesses and individuals
understand the new regulations. In particular, we have plans to
engage ACAS and Citizens Advice. We have also engaged the CBI, TUC
and IWGB following the laying of this
legislation...
...The noble Lord, , asked about the IWGB case in the High Court,
including how much the case cost the taxpayer and when the
Government were first made aware of it. He also asked about the PPE
regulations. It is right that the courts were able to consider all
details of the case before coming to a conclusion. The claim
succeeded only in part: the court accepted that the UK was not
required to extend unfair dismissal to limb (b) workers and had
properly implemented the general obligations of the health and
safety framework directive. The Government chose not to appeal the
judgment and are clarifying their understanding of the EU directive
when transposing into domestic law...
To read the whole debate, CLICK
HERE
|
