Agitating for Part‐Time Workers' Rights
| Author | Charlotte Villiers,Fidelma White |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1995.tb02032.x |
| Date | 01 July 1995 |
| Published date | 01 July 1995 |
The Modern
LAW
Review
[Vol.
58
Conclusions
In
Spring,
negligence again presents itself as the avenue through which judges
reform private law. The emphasis throughout was on negligence, although the
speeches of Lords Woolf and Slynn demonstrate that contract could have provided
a remedy. It is somewhat surprising that the contractual analysis did not dominate
the speeches, especially since
Scally
indicates that the contractual analysis should
be preferred in cases involving harm arising from empl~yment.~~ Yet only Lord
Woolf held that the ‘primary source of any liability is contractual rather than
tortious,’ since the relationship with the defendants arose from the previous
engagement;55 the other Law Lords did not address the point. We might also ask
what would have happened if the plaintiff had brought the action in defamation.
Would their Lordships have found a remedy by reforming the law of defamation?
For example, would they have held that qualified privilege should not be available
to employers or, if available, it should be rebuttable by proof of carelessness rather
than malice? Certainly,
Derbyshire County Council
v
Times Newspaperss6
suggests that the House of Lords is willing to take a fresh look at the rules of
defamation where political values are at stake; would it do
so
where more personal
or commercial values are at stake? It seems doubtfuls7; perhaps the employer’s
qualified privilege has stood too long in a tort ‘beyond the redemption of the
courts’58 for the judiciary to re-examine it.59 And perhaps the return of a more
liberal view of negligence makes it unnecessary.
Agitating
for
Part-Time
Workers’
Rights
Charlotte Villiers and Fidelma White”
In
1994,
progress was made for part-timers
in
the pursuit of their rights at work. In
Equal Opportunities Commission
v
Secretary
of
State for Employment,’
the
House of Lords, having recognised the standing of the Equal Opportunities
Commission
(EOC),
granted a declaration that provisions of the Employment
Protection (Consolidation) Act
1978
(EPCA) indirectly discriminate against
women and therefore are incompatible with European Community law.
This
involved reversing the decisions
of
the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal.
This case is significant for a number of reasons. First, while the case recognises
the need to protect part-time workers, the EOC was successful because it was held
~
54
supra
n 48, at pp 302-304
(per
Lord Bridge).
55
supra
n
1,
at p 390. Cf
South Pacific Manufacturing Co
Lid
v
New
Zealand Security Consultants
&
Investigations
Ltd,
supra
n
18,
at p 297
(per
Cooke
P).
56 [1993]
AC
534.
57 But see Lord Woolf,
supra
n 1, at
p
400:
‘it by no means follows that
so
far as references are
concerned the same view should
be
taken of public policy as was taken when
Whiteley
v
Adam
was
decided.’
58
Slim
v
Daily Telegraph
Lid
[1968] 2 QB 157
(per
Diplock
LJ).
59 cf
White
v
Jones,
supra
n 3, at p 216
(per
Lord Mustill), and Hedley, ‘Recovering Lost Legacies:
White
v
Jones
in the Lords’ [1995]
1
Web JCLI: ‘if we are truly convinced that the will admitted to
probate does not reflect [the testator’s] wishes at the time of his death, why admit it to probate at
all?’
*Lecturers in Law, University of Sheffield.
We are grateful to Professor Tony
Prosser
and Ian Harden for their comments on
an
earlier draft of this
note.
1
560
[1994]
1
All
ER
910.
0
The
Modem
Law
Review Limited
1995
To continue reading
Request your trial