header-logo header-logo

27 February 2019
Issue: 7830 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Brexit risks for workers

Employment lawyers warn of ‘significant impact’ of loss of EU guidance

Uncertainty about the interpretation of EU case law post-Brexit is threatening workers’ rights, employment lawyers have warned.

With just one month to go until the UK’s departure, questions remain as to how courts and tribunals will interpret case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the Employment Lawyers Association (ELA) said this week in a paper, Brexit: CJEU. Post-Brexit, UK courts may have regard to CJEU case law but will not be bound by it.

‘Perhaps of greatest significance will be the loss of the preliminary reference mechanism,’ the ELA paper warns.

‘These will be referrals made by domestic courts and tribunals seeking guidance on the application of EU law… If such guidance is not available, then, whilst the court or tribunal will still be likely to reach a decision, it is arguable that such a decision will be deficient, or will be seen to be deficient, because of the fact that guidance was clearly required but not supplied.’

Paul McFarlane, chair of ELA’s legislative and policy committee, said: ‘There have been a number of seminal employment law cases where the guidance of the CJEU has been particularly significant, for instance, Lock v British Gas Trading Limited, which dealt with the application of the Working Time Directive to holiday pay calculations, or Dekker v Stichting, which simplified the tests that a woman complaining of pregnancy discrimination needs to satisfy.

‘The loss of such guidance will have a significant impact upon UK employment law.’

The ELA also expressed doubt about the practicalities of the government’s proposals to ensure UK workers’ rights keep pace with those of EU workers.

Meanwhile, the government published a document this week, Implications for business and trade of a no deal exit. For lawyers, it states, no-deal would mean ‘the loss of the automatic right to provide short term “fly in fly out” services, as the type of work lawyers can do in each individual member state may vary, and the loss of rights of audience in EU courts. UK lawyers and businesses would be responsible for ensuring they can operate in each Member State they want to work in.’

Issue: 7830 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Brexit
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll