Employment lawyer John Hayes responds to an article in The Times that criticised UK employment law, explaining why it is better than the rules adopted by the US and some of our European neighbours.
Libby Purves’ article in The Times (Monday 15 April 2024) contends that “Employment law isn’t working for anyone”. As an employment lawyer for over 30 years, I have to disagree. I know it’s not perfect but whether we like it or not, I believe that UK employment law is much better than anywhere else in the world.
If Purves – or anyone else – thinks that employees are overprotected in the UK, they should try to fire someone in France or Germany where the legal model emphasises social protection, employee participation in decision-making, and job security. In Germany for example, even in an anodyne redundancy situation, it is almost impossible to dismiss someone. France also leans heavily towards the rights of employees at the expense of the employers.
Even in Ireland, which is the most comparable jurisdiction to the UK, it is relatively easy for a high-earning employee to get an injunction to prevent their employer from dismissing them. That is not the case in the UK, unless in exceptional circumstances.
At the other end of the spectrum, in the US, employee protection is incredibly limited; the majority of workers have “at will” employment contracts. There is no unfair dismissal protection and an employee can be fired at a day’s notice. That is not our way of doing things here; most people are used to sensible contractual notice periods, be it a month, three months for medium-level employees, or six months for very senior employees.
As with many things, we find ourselves straddling the Atlantic in terms of employment law, bridging the gap between very minimal employment rights in the US and very employee-focused in the EU. Our more flexible employment laws allow organisations to employ over a million agency workers and zero-hours workers, while adopting a far higher degree of hybrid working and flexible working in secure roles than any other European country. We work in a country where the employment law is broadly pro-employer in that it is relatively easy to dismiss someone, but if you do it unfairly, it is going to cost you. And that, I feel, is the right balance.
The claims of ‘snowflakes’?
So, Libby Purves is wrong in suggesting that in some way employment law exists to support the claims of “snowflakes” and unmeritorious employees. Employment tribunals may be overloaded, but my experience as an employment lawyer is that far more good claims are suppressed than are brought, particularly by women who have been discriminated against often because they do not want the stigma of bringing a claim which may become a career-defining issue.
We find ourselves straddling the Atlantic in terms of employment law, bridging the gap between very minimal employment rights in the US and very employee-focused in the EU”
That is not to say that the system is working perfectly; far from it, and some significant improvements could be made to the employment processes in this country. Purves is right that it takes too long to bring a case. This is partly a feature of the law itself and partly due to the under-resourcing of the Courts & Tribunals Service over a long period.
Investigations
Too many internal investigations can take too long – think back to the BBC’s investigation of Huw Edwards – and something should be done to shorten those processes. All of us in employment law or HR would have been involved in internal investigations which grind on for too long and become deeply dispiriting, not just for the employee but also for the employer.
Now, there is a new agenda in what is likely to be an election year. The Labour Party are promising a raft of additional employment rights if they come to power, and the second half of this year is going to be interesting in looking at employment rights as each political party seeks to find the delicate balance between fostering economic growth and providing safe, inclusive, enjoyable places for people to work. I believe that employment law qualifying periods should be reduced from two years to one year, although Labour is promising less than that.
So, I think Libby Purves is wrong. UK employment law is far from perfect, but there are some areas we can be thankful for.
