Discrimination and Employment Law

For a long time in history, it has been a norm in the society to experience injustices varying from age, race, religion and even native background. Basically, discrimination and employment law has been the most current concern for most governments, activists and human rights associations.[1] Owing to this, most governments have enacted laws that govern and prescribe ethical practices at workplaces. In particular, the UK has been so concerned about the public outcry on the need to protect employees regardless of their origin. The law protects people against discrimination in recruitment of jobs, dismissals, payment, and benefits, training, redundancy and employment terms and conditions.[2] However, some organizations have been given freedom to work according to their norms and values, irrespective of the current law. For instance, a Muslim women center employs only nurses of the female gender.

Many activists and researchers have always come up with reports on the constitution of the workplace by men and women and their respective ratios.[3] From this, it can be deduced that women are far much lagging in the workforce of several nations including the UK. For instance, the reports presented by National Board of Statistics over the influence on job-determination by gender showed that Britain was ranked 11th out of the 18 countries taken into consideration. It was way behind US and France. Further, the data obtained showed that sex was a determinant of the salary of employees. It estimated that since 1975, the salary of women in the UK has been and is still is 19.8% less than that of men.[4] Evidently, the right to receive equal pay in the workplace has not been heeded seriously by the employers in the UK.

Many employers still have the retrogressive ideas that workplaces are not suited for women.[5] Women have been disregarded for so long in the promotion opportunities and employers have failed to take into consideration that almost all women have other caring commitments apart from their jobs. In fact, it has been a common phenomenon for many women to retire and languish in poverty afterward for the rest of their lives. UNISON has been very instrumental in championing the rights of women and gender differences in employment and have engaged a plethora of campaigns that advocate for women all-inclusivity at the workplaces and community undertakings.[6] Despite their efforts, there has been a criticism of the championed system with claims that employ many women but do not compensate them fairly compared to the male workers in their organization. The failure of UNISON to address this issue has since provided the basis to establish that the issue of sex discrimination in the workplace has not been fully engaged in the society.[7]

The Equality Act 2010 states that all individuals have the rights not to be discriminated against because of gender difference. The law enacted, which works in relation to the Equality Act in the UK, defines sex discrimination according to four aspects.[8] First, direct discrimination entails the gender bias that one receives directly in terms of treatment whenever in workplaces or at social gatherings. It can be attributed to chances of a person of a certain gender fails to be accorded while opposite gender receives.[9]

Second, harassment has been stated to be behaviors that are not desired or are intended to violate someone’s dignity. It may be a way of intimidating, humiliating, offending, degrading or creating a hostile environment for an individual. The third aspect is that indirect discrimination is an unethical practice where employers institute rules that are intended to jeopardize the rights of men or women in the workplace.[10] The final aspect that defines sex discrimination is the act of victimization that applies to people who are treated less favorably owing to their criticism and complains about the way other people are treated. For more than three decades, the UK has engaged legislation against the aforesaid instances of discrimination. The number of cases increases by the day and the statutory organ persists to proliferate. More than any other state, the UK, arguably, has had a great effect in defining the European Courts (EC) with respect to the issue of discrimination. UK has participated in a myriad of dialogues with EC institutions via a process of legislation, and the European Court of Justice (ECJ) via references supported and funded by the former Equal Opportunities Commissions.

According to Lord Davey who oversaw the 1898 case of Allen v. Flood, a manager may refuse to hire an employee for the most mistaken and morally reprehensible motives that can be thought of. However, they do have the right of action against him or her.[11] Historically, this has been the original position with regards to the common law that was not controlled or defined by any constitutional right to equality given the fact that the UK does not have any written Constitution. Over time, this, and other common law positions have been changed with a major one being the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act of 1919 which removed restrictions on the female gender by reason of sex from being, for instance, civil servants, students, solicitors as well as holding other judicial or civil office. The Sex Disqualification Act was later repealed by the important piece of legislation against discrimination, the Sex Discrimination Act (SDA) in 1975.[12]

SDA prevented discrimination based on sex with respect to employment matters especially those that had not been engaged by the Equal Pay Act of 1970 such as in promotion, firing, hiring and non-contract compensation matters.[13] To expound, the Act adopted the conventional negative rights model in order to gain equality. Via the Act, persons with issues would be able to present their matters to the tribunals supported by the protection from victimization. The enforcement of provisions was left to the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) which has since been replaced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).[14] SDA also introduced the idea of indirect discrimination and positive action. In doing this, the legislation transcended beyond a formal model of equality and engaged aspects of substantive equality. Essentially, the Act sort to establish a playing ground that was level for all genders and that operated on the grounds of merit.

Since its passing, SDA has been altered and changed in a number of occasions in a bid to bring the elements of its provision in line with the laws of EC.[15] The 1996 Equality Act imposed a responsibility on the public authority not to discriminate because of gender and to promote equal opportunities to all people. This can potentially achieve the much-needed sex equality in the UK. The Trades Union Congress (TUC) engaged in campaigns for more than a century to promote equal pay for both genders which led to the introduction of EPA in 1970.[16] It demanded equality in matters of contracts compensation for both genders in the same jobs. Though the first Act had no general right to equal compensation for same work, the proceedings that were engagement by the EC commission led to the subsequent changes facilitated by the Equal Pay Amendment Regulation in 1983.[17] There was a further amendment of the Equal Pay Act 1970 (Regulations 2003) to increase the time limit for presenting 6 months old claims in addition to allowing backdating claims for 6 years.

Another amendment with respect to the issue of gender was the EC Part-Time Work Directive 97/18/EC that was effected by the Part-Time Workers Regulation 2000 (Prevention of Less Favorable Treatment),[18] and the Fixed-Term Work Directive 99/70/EC that was effected by the Fixed Term Employees Regulation 2002 to ban unfavorable treatment that applies to both fixed and part-time contract employees. Notably, individuals who work for agencies find themselves in unfair situations. For some time, the EC has not been in a position to engage a Directive in the equal treatment of employees working in agencies. As a result, the employees have been forced to count on the protection presented by domestic law that is limited in scope.[19] There exist no Constitutional right to equal treatment that supports them and in a myriad of cases, they fail to enjoy even the most basic job rights due to the triangulated position they persist where control is with the user but obligation, in the cases where it exists, lies with the agency. This means that there exists no relationship for the worker with the agency with respect to employment matters.[20]

Other than Northern Ireland, there was no ban against discrimination with respect to religion in the UK until the EC’s Framework Directive 2000/78 in Article 13 Directives that also banned discrimination due to gender.[21] The aforesaid obligation has currently been incorporated in the British Law by the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) regulation 2003 that became effective in December 2003.[22] However, it is important to note that the law in Britain has not been exclusively consistent on this point. Various strands cover discrimination on religion whereas others, such as those related to gender, do not.

In the UK, it is challenging to describe the common cases of discrimination or at least reporting them. Evidently, there are myriad of critical issues with respect to equal pay. There has also been a rise in litigation with regards to the new strands of discrimination. An example of a controversial case is the Azmi v. Kirkless MBC[23] which entailed a British Muslim Class teacher who presented literacy and mathematics lessons to children in primary school. The teacher insisted on keeping her face fully covered especially around male colleagues. The institutions, at first, agreed that the teacher could cover her face when there was male presence. However, the agreement came to an end after it was established that by covering her face, she was not in apposition to communicate correctly with her students.[24] The teacher was then suspended and then presented a case that she had suffered direct and indirect discrimination due to harassment not only with regards to religion but also sex. Although she lost the case, she was awarded $1,100 for victimization.

There are no provisions in Britain law that allow reverse discrimination in the favor of groups that are protected. Reverse discrimination is also termed as positive discrimination and describes the discrimination against individuals from a dominant group in favor of those from minority groups.[25] Group, in this context, can be defined as gender or any other factors such as race. In British law, however, positive action is permitted. This is because it can be engaged to encourage individual from a given gender to take advantage of opportunities for employment experience or training. However, it can only be performed when a certain group, in this case, the female gender, has been identified as under-represented in a given area of employment. Positive action may entail procedures of selection that are considerate including targeted advertisements or training programs at a given gender.[26] It is important to note that positive action is dissimilar to positive discrimination and does not concern treating a given gender more favorably during recruitment than the female gender. The employer must understand that workers are hired and promoted only on the basis of merit alone. Still, EC Law can permit states to engage further and possibly practice limited positive discrimination. The UK has, however, not assumed advantage of this possibility with regards to gender, race, nationality, and religion.

Before the directives of 2000 by EC, ‘unwanted’ sexual attentions fell within Race Relations Act (RRA) and Sex Discrimination Act (SDA) if they entailed negativity to the victim.[27] This approach was not well received due to the fact that it depended on females proving that they had been mistreated or treated less favorably than their male counterparts. If a woman could not show this, she lost her claim. The negative consequence of this approach is evident in the Stewart v Cleveland and Guest Engineering Ltd[28] case, where the court ruled out a show of woman pun-ups, was not a treatment that was less favorable since she had not proved that a typical male would be treated differently in the case he had presented a complaint. Nonetheless, the aforesaid challenge has been contained by the fact that harassment is not perceived as a type of discrimination but a lawful act that is illegal on its own under EC Law.

Indirect discrimination has also been controversial under UK law.[29] Article 13 directive, however, introduced a rather related test for indirect discrimination which has been extended to sex discrimination. One of the components in this regard is that an employer should apply to a female a provision or a criterion of practice (PCP) that they would apply to a man. In a certain case involving British Airway v Starmer,[30] a female pilot challenged the decision by the company to disregard her request to work 50% of full-time hours. This ad hoc management decision was perceived as a criterion of practice and not a requirement. Another component in Article 13 directive on indirect discrimination shows that criterion for practice applies or would apply equally to a man but which places females at a disadvantage. Still, there is need to show the individuals the female is particularly disadvantaged followed by proving her disadvantage.

Article 141 concentrates on whether equal compensation directly or indirectly discriminates against females. Though indirect discrimination can be justified, the lack of derogation to the principle of equal compensation in Article 141 has led to various challenges. In the Equal Pay Act, the plaintiff has to establish the provision that there is an individual of the opposite sex who has or who is engaged in equal work and who have to be employed in the same organization. When all aforesaid provisions are availed, the case can be objectively justified.

There is a lack of effective regulations in the UK of contingent employment.[31] The questions have been engaged chiefly via judicial or administrative interpretations of the existing legislation. Contingent workers except independent contractors are protected under the laws against discrimination. However, it is clear that the UK lags behind other developed nations that have definite laws that protect workers. A number of nations are at different starting points in the creation of restrictions on contingent employment with spectrum being, for example, banning against temporary employment, the requirement of equal compensation and benefits, and health and safety protection among others. While safeguarding workers, these legislations accept the legitimacy of the triangular employment relationship.[32] There is also need for both the government and the employees including contingent workers to take unionization seriously. Collective bargaining and unionization are particularly important as a way of resisting the tactics of employers such as disregarding provisions of equal pay.

The employment laws are mostly realized through legislation in the UK. The employment laws are used to protect workers and employees. Self-workers usually have limited protection. The contracts of employment usually do not have to be in writing, hence contemporary and standard laws may be used, only if the employer is governed by a collective agreement. Other terms and conditions may be subject to employers’ discretion and government regulation. Many employers still have the retrogressive ideas that workplaces are not suited for women. In fact, some even allow women harassment or place rules that ‘allow’ gender discrimination.

On the same note, women have been disregarded for so long in the promotion opportunities. Employers do not take into consideration that almost all women have caring commitments apart from their jobs.[33] In fact, it has been a common phenomenon for many women to retire and languish in poverty afterward for the rest of their lives. In particular, UNISON considers sex discrimination so much in their undertakings. Often, they have been involved in various campaigns that advocate for women all-inclusivity at the workplaces and community undertakings. Despite their efforts, there has been a criticism of their system that they have a high number of women employees but of low pay rates as compared to the male workers in their organization.[34] Their failure to address the issue has since provided the basis to establish that the issue of sex discrimination has not been fully covered in the society.

Decades after the Equal Pay Act was enacted, the gender gap in pay still persist. While this can be explained by the wide social structures such as occupational segregation, the undervaluation of the work of women and the unequal division of family duties, it is basically accepted among policy circles that the activities of discrimination by workers contribute to the raging unequal compensation. While gender discrimination may be deliberate, it is likely to be systemic in practice and therefore can only be identified via systemic analysis of the systems of payment used by employers. These individuals, however, do not appreciate the idea of systemic evaluation practices of their organizations.[35]

From the above explicated, it is crystal that is need for fundamental reforms in the UK laws protecting women and girls from discrimination, sexual harassment and even violence in the workplace and employers must assume duty in protecting these individuals. Gordon explains that the Fawcett Society performed a study on law on sex discrimination in the UK. The researchers found that there was evidence of increasing abuse, harassment and violence against the female gender. This ca be in part attributed in part to the lack of access to justice for women and girls. The research conducted by Fawcett Society established that more than half of all employed females suffered sexual harassment at their work places. One in every five women aged 16 years and above had suffered sexual assault and in various instances, evidence of the sexual history of the victim was used inappropriately in court.

The review recommended various changes in the legal system such as strengthening the laws on sexual harassment at places of work to protect females from being discriminated against and harassed by third parties and extending the protection from pregnancy discrimination to 6 months after the end of maternity leave. The review also called for employers to have increased responsibility for the female workers and be proactive. The review also recommended for large corporations to be subject to new duty to contain discrimination. The Fawcett Society calls for introduction of civil penalties when organizations fail to comply with the rules on gender pay, and a further enhancement of the powers provided by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to engage enforcement measures and offer an immediate impact on organizations that do not comply with reporting on Gender Pay Gap.[36] Fawcett also champions that the provisions be changed to break down the gender pay gap by age, impairment, sexuality, and ethnicity and that by 2020, the provisions should apply to organizations with more than 50 workers.[37]

Fawcett Society has also championed other reforms such as the reintroduction of Equal Pay Questionnaires and the introduction of mandatory equal compensation audits every three years for organizations with more than 250 workers. According to the Society, the equal compensation claims and equal value claims should be effected by the Employment Tribunals and that class actions should be engaged for same compensation claims. This should also comprise pension contributions while not diminishing the right of females to pursue individual claims. With regards to the harassment in the place of work, the reviews notes that there should be a reintroduction of Section 40 of the Equality Act 2010 in order to ascertain the legal protection of female workers against harassment by third parties, and a further extensions of protection from harassment under Section 25 (5) to maternity and pregnancy.[38] Although there has been various indications by critics on the practicability of effecting some provisions, the report, to great extent, adds to the discussions on gender equality on the places of work and advances and promotes the agenda and discussion on equality and the immediate need for reforms.

Nevertheless, sex discrimination has a wide range of areas that should be probed and solutions provided. For instance, the issue of pregnancy and maternity has to be critically analyzed and described in order to attain the most acceptable and standard ways to handle them. Others pertaining to gender are, recruitment, part-time working, and relationships at work, redundancy and dress codes. In conclusion, the laws enacted in the UK are aimed at attaining the most desirable terms of work that are gender sensitive to avoid discrimination. It is, therefore, the duty of each employer to follow the speculations of the law, unless otherwise. The UNISON has been known to champion equal pay for both genders with same designated jobs.[39] Other gender-related organizations and activists should also team up in the fighting of gender-based discrimination.

Discrimination is a non-ethical aspect that has to be dealt with, in and out, in the journey to realizing the best societal practices.[40] Various policies and sets of rules have been enacted and geared towards the realization of a harmonious society in the UK. These rules, however, have to be enforced by the relevant authorities and judicial system in order to attain a good living and conformity to world standards. More so, being part of the UN makes a compulsory note to the UK on the need to adopt the world set standards on employment.[41] Employment laws, on the other hand, have been instituted and manifested to each employer. It is the duty of all the employers and employees to conform to the contemporary workplace expected moral ethics and standards found in the law.[42] Specifically, the UK should enact, implement and improvise laws pertaining to discrimination and employment laws in the society. Ultimately, the desired workplace practices are set to increase productivity and innovation if these laws are heeded.[43]

 

 

Bibliography

  1. Blanpain, Roger, and Jim Baker. Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations in Industrialized Market Economies. The Hague: Kluwer Law Internat, 2004, p.116.
  2. Gold, Michael Evan. An Introduction to the Law of Employment Discrimination. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2001 p.2.
  3. Risman BJ. Gender as a social structure: Theory wrestling with activism. Gender & society. 2004 Aug;18(4):429-50.
  4. org.uk (2018.)
  5. Gazso, A., 2004. Women’s inequality in the workplace as framed in news discourse: Refracting from gender ideology. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie, 41(4), pp.449-473.
  6. Gregory A, Milner S. Trade Unions and Work‐life Balance: Changing Times in France and the UK?. British Journal of Industrial Relations. 2009 Mar 1;47(1): p.122-46.
  7. Manthorpe, J., & Moriarty, J. Equality Act 2010. p.16.
  8. Hepple, B., 2010. The new single equality act in Britain. The Equal Rights Review, 5, pp.11-24. Lindemann, Barbara, Paul Grossman, and C. Geoffrey Weirich. Employment Discrimination Law. Washington, DC: BNA Books, 2007.
  9. Lindemann, Barbara, Paul Grossman, and C. Geoffrey Weirich. Employment Discrimination Law. Washington, DC: BNA Books, 2007
  10. DeNisi, Angelo S. HR: (with Online Printed Access Card). 2017. p.202.
  11. [1898] A.C. 1 at p.172
  12. McCrudden, Christopher. Equality in Law between Men and Women in the European Community: United Kingdom. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1994.p.10
  13. Fredman S. Reforming equal pay laws. Industrial Law Journal. 2008 Sep 1;37(3):193-218.
  14. JILPT Comparative Labor Law Seminar, R. Blanpain, Hiroya Nakakubo, Takashi Araki, and Catherine Barnard. New Developments in Employment Discrimination Law. Austin: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2008.p.40.
  15. S41(3) SDA 1975.
  16. Stevenson G. The Forgotten Strike: Equality, Gender, and Class in the Trico Equal Pay Strike. Labour History Review. 2016 Jul;81(2):141-68.
  17. SI 1983/1794.
  18. SI 2000/1551.
  19. Forde C, Slater G. Agency working in Britain: character, consequences, and regulation. British Journal of Industrial Relations. 2005 Jun 1;43(2):249-71.
  20. James v. Greenwich [2007] IRLR 168 (EAT); [2008] EWCA 35.
  21. The other Directive was Dir. 200/43 on race and ethnic origin
  22. R (Amicus – MSF Section) v. Secretary of State for trade and Industry [2004] IRLR 430.
  23. [2007] IRLR 484
  24. Wainwright, The Guardian, 20 October 2006
  25. Macdonald, Lynda A. C. Managing Equality, Diversity and the Avoidance of Discrimination. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2004.p.12.
  26. SDA, ss.47 and 48, RRA. ss.37 and 38, and the EOC Code of Practice paras.37-40 and CRE Code of Practice paras.1.33 to 1.37.
  27. SDA s.6 (2) (c); RRA, s.4 (2)(c)
  28. [1994] IRLR 440
  29. Duncan C, Loretto W. Never the right age? Gender and age‐based discrimination in employment. Gender, Work & Organization. 2004 Jan 1;11(1):95-115.
  30. [2005] IRLR 862
  31. Clement, Wallace, and Vivian Shalla. Work in Tumultuous Times: Canadian Perspectives. Montreal [Que.]: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2007. p.68.
  32. Vosko, supra note 230, at 70-73; Raday, supra note 232, at p.420-422
  33. Padfield M, Procter I. Young adult women, work, and family: Living a contradiction. Routledge; 2014 Jan 14.p.161
  34. Dijkstra AG, Plantenga J. Gender, and economics: a European perspective. Routledge; 2013 Oct 11. p.92.
  35. Deakin S, McLaughlin C, Chai DH. Gender inequality and reflexive law: the potential of different regulatory mechanisms for making employment rights effective. Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge; 2011.p.2
  36. Sarah Gordon, “Review Finds UK Discrimination Law Requires Fundamental Reform | Financial Times”, Ft.Com, Last modified 2018, https://www.ft.com/content/eea9d4ae-ffc8-11e7-9650-9c0ad2d7c5b5.
  37. Sarah Gordon, 2018.
  38. Morgan Lewis, “UK Diversity Matters: The Gender Pay Gap And Gender Equality At Work | Lexology”, Lexology.Com, Last modified 2018, https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=36e7baa5-a1bb-465f-b3e6-ef114846a16b.
  39. Thornley C. Working Part‐Time for the State: Gender, Class, and the Public Sector Pay Gap. Gender, Work & Organization. 2007 Sep 1;14(5):454-75.
  40. Colloquium on Promoting Ethics in the Public Service. Promoting Ethics in the Public Service. New York: United Nations, 2000. p.33
  41. Gross, James A. Workers’ Rights As Human Rights. Ilr Pr, 2006.p.226.
  42. Tricker B, Tricker G. Business Ethics: A Stakeholder, Governance and Risk Approach. Routledge; 2014 Jan 3. p.318.
  43. Green, Francis. Demanding Work The Paradox of Job Quality in the Affluent Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013.p.147.

 

 

 

 

[1] Blanpain, Roger, and Jim Baker. Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations in Industrialized Market Economies. The Hague: Kluwer Law Internat, 2004, p.116.

[2] Gold, Michael Evan. An Introduction to the Law of Employment Discrimination. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2001 p.2.

[3] Risman BJ. Gender as a social structure: Theory wrestling with activism. Gender & society. 2004 Aug;18(4):429-50.

[4] Ageuk.org.uk (2018.)

[5] Gazso, A., 2004. Women’s inequality in the workplace as framed in news discourse: Refracting from gender ideology. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie, 41(4), pp.449-473.

[6] Gregory A, Milner S. Trade Unions and Work‐life Balance: Changing Times in France and the UK?. British Journal of Industrial Relations. 2009 Mar 1;47(1): p.122-46.

[7] Manthorpe, J., & Moriarty, J. Equality Act 2010. p.16.

 

[8] Hepple, B., 2010. The new single equality act in Britain. The Equal Rights Review, 5, pp.11-24.

[9] Lindemann, Barbara, Paul Grossman, and C. Geoffrey Weirich. Employment Discrimination Law. Washington, DC: BNA Books, 2007.

[10] DeNisi, Angelo S. HR: (with Online Printed Access Card). 2017. P.202.

[11] [1898] A.C. 1 at p.172

[12] McCrudden, Christopher. Equality in Law between Men and Women in the European Community: United Kingdom. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1994.p.10.

[13] Fredman S. Reforming equal pay laws. Industrial Law Journal. 2008 Sep 1;37(3):193-218.

[14] JILPT Comparative Labor Law Seminar, R. Blanpain, Hiroya Nakakubo, Takashi Araki, and Catherine Barnard. New Developments in Employment Discrimination Law. Austin: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2008.p.40.

[15] S41(3) SDA 1975

[16] Stevenson G. The Forgotten Strike: Equality, Gender, and Class in the Trico Equal Pay Strike. Labour History Review. 2016 Jul;81(2):141-68.

[17] SI 1983/1794.

[18] SI 2000/1551

[19] Forde C, Slater G. Agency working in Britain: character, consequences, and regulation. British Journal of Industrial Relations. 2005 Jun 1;43(2):249-71.

[20] James v. Greenwich [2007] IRLR 168 (EAT); [2008] EWCA 35.

[21] The other Directive was Dir. 200/43 on race and ethnic origin

[22] R (Amicus – MSF Section) v. Secretary of State for trade and
Industry [2004] IRLR 430.

[23] [2007] IRLR 484

[24] M.Wainwright, The Guardian, 20 October 2006

[25] Macdonald, Lynda A. C. Managing Equality, Diversity and the Avoidance of Discrimination. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2004.p.12.

[26] SDA, ss.47 and 48, RRA. ss.37 and 38, and the EOC Code of Practice paras.37-40 and CRE Code
of Practice paras.1.33 to 1.37.

[27] SDA s.6(2)(c); RRA, s.4(2)(c)

[28] [1994] IRLR 440

[29] Duncan C, Loretto W. Never the right age? Gender and age‐based discrimination in employment. Gender, Work & Organization. 2004 Jan 1;11(1):95-115.

[30] [2005] IRLR 862

[31] Clement, Wallace, and Vivian Shalla. Work in Tumultuous Times: Canadian Perspectives. Montreal [Que.]: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2007. p.68.

[32] Vosko, supra note 230, at 70-73; Raday, supra note 232, at p.420-422

[33] Padfield M, Procter I. Young adult women, work, and family: Living a contradiction. Routledge; 2014 Jan 14.p.161

[34] Dijkstra AG, Plantenga J. Gender, and economics: a European perspective. Routledge; 2013 Oct 11. p.92.

[35] Deakin S, McLaughlin C, Chai DH. Gender inequality and reflexive law: the potential of different regulatory mechanisms for making employment rights effective. Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge; 2011.p.2

[36] Sarah Gordon, “Review Finds UK Discrimination Law Requires Fundamental Reform | Financial Times”, Ft.Com, Last modified 2018, https://www.ft.com/content/eea9d4ae-ffc8-11e7-9650-9c0ad2d7c5b5.

[37] Sarah Gordon, 2018.

[38] Morgan Lewis, “UK Diversity Matters: The Gender Pay Gap And Gender Equality At Work | Lexology”, Lexology.Com, Last modified 2018, https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=36e7baa5-a1bb-465f-b3e6-ef114846a16b.

[39] Thornley C. Working Part‐Time for the State: Gender, Class, and the Public Sector Pay Gap. Gender, Work & Organization. 2007 Sep 1;14(5):454-75.

[40] Colloquium on Promoting Ethics in the Public Service. Promoting Ethics in the Public Service. New York: United Nations, 2000. p.33

[41] Gross, James A. Workers’ Rights As Human Rights. Ilr Pr, 2006.p.226.

 

[42] Tricker B, Tricker G. Business Ethics: A Stakeholder, Governance and Risk Approach. Routledge; 2014 Jan 3. p.318.

[43] Green, Francis. Demanding Work The Paradox of Job Quality in the Affluent Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013.p.147.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s