So far legal analysis of the phenomenon of partial migration in the European Union has been scattered across studies of isolated groups of rights. The aim of this research is to provide a systematic conceptualisation of this area by establishing the role of the concepts of Union citizenship and bona fide residence in a Member State in shaping and protection of socio-economic rights of partial migrants consequent on their right to free movement. On the basis of examination of the experience of other complex political entities, this study aspires to contribute to the theory of European Union citizenship by bringing the issue of rights of economically active persons whose migration pattern deviates from the mainstream free movement of workers and the self-employed within the discourse of Union citizenship. The scope of the rights of partial migrants is delimited by approaching the conflict between the aforementioned categories as an instantiation of the opposition between the national welfare state and the supra-national entity of the European Union. In this connection, this research is focused on such rights as the right to free movement and residence, and the rights in the welfare-related domains of social security, taxation, and housing which are identified by the Commission as particularly complicated, and on the most topical forms of partial migration in relation to which a great number of challenging conceptual problems have been identified. In this thesis a variety of methods is used. Firstly, we use the method of analysis developed within the coherence theory. Secondly, two methods of analysis identified by J Shaw are employed. The first one draws upon the formally identified sources of citizenship rules and rights in the Treaty along with other closely related sources of law in the form of secondary legislation and Court of Justice case law. The second method applies explanatory tools from the contextual citizenship agenda of the Treaty. Finally, the research is based on the comparative law method. The shaping and protection of socio-economic rights of partial migrants in a complex entity such as the European Union is defined by the balance between their status as Union citizens, on the one hand, and their status as bona fide residents, non-bona-fide residents, and non-resident workers and the self-employed tied to the welfare systems of the Member States. The role of the Treaty provisions on Union citizenship as a constitutional basis in protection or partial migrants' rights is still incipient. However, the meaningfulness of the concept of Union citizenship for partial migrants is ultimately defined by the process of approximation of their socio-economic membership in the respective communities of their Member States of residence and work as well as membership in the greater community of the European Union to the ideal of full membership for partial migrants. The coherence of the construct of Union citizenship is tested within this continuum (with reference to specific areas identified in this study) according to the scope of rights enjoyed by partial migrants under Community law.

While the antidiscrimination laws of the European Union (EU) and the United States of America (US) seek to prohibit pregnancy discrimination in the workplace, their approach to the problem has historically differed. US law has been defined by an ‘equal treatment’ approach. The contrasting EU laws reflect a holistic approach that seeks substantive equality by combining equal treatment with ‘special treatment’ measures, complemented by the strategy of gender mainstreaming. This thesis sets out to examine the extent to which US antidiscrimination law is shifting towards a more holistic approach that seeks greater substantive equality for pregnant workers. This examination is carried out on two levels: firstly, this thesis will comparatively study the two distinct models of equality that exist to address sex discrimination in the EU and the US, with a view to highlighting differences and similarities, and the availability of alternative measures, or serious limitations in their approach to pregnancy discrimination. Secondly, this thesis examines the antidiscrimination legislation that has been adopted and proposed on the national and state levels in the US, in order to draw attention to the increasing number of measures providing paid leave and workplace accommodations for pregnant workers, and imposing a duty to promote or achieve substantive equality. This examination is undertaken against a background of the distinct historical, legal, and conceptual context against which EU and US sex discrimination law has been adopted, and the discursive debate of feminist legal theorists regarding the role of law in both subordinating women, and in helping to end their inequality. EU and US law is studied in this wider context, because they have all been influential upon its development and provide a framework for assessing how far the trajectory of US antidiscrimination law is converging with that of the EU.

No description available.

In modern employment relations there has been an increased practice by employers to provide their employees with formal statements including company manuals, work rules, policies, and collective agreements. These ostensibly non-contractual documents, which are ‘voluntary’ or ‘unilaterally’ introduced by the employer, may contain, inter alia, promises of benefits and entitlements such as an equal opportunity policy, an enhanced disciplinary procedure, and redundancy and bonus schemes. The question in each case is whether these promises can create legal entitlement and are therefore enforceable. The legal approach in employment law to voluntary promises has not been able to provide a coherent approach that responds appropriately to the employee’s reliance upon the promise and their dignity, on the one hand, and the employer’s business efficiency and the need to protect its business interests, on the other. There is limited research on the legal effect of such promises that operates outside an explicitly contractual framework. Conversely, there is a strong indication that the US legal approach, which shares similar contractual legal framework tools with the UK, has developed a more cohesive approach in relation to such promises. Yet, there is a lack of research in terms of a comparative study on the legal approach to promises, in both UK and US employment law. Thus, the focus of this research is not limited to what constitutes an enforceable promise in English employment law but extends to how English courts can achieve a coherent legal approach to voluntary promises where both parties’ interests and expectations are appropriately balanced. To achieve this aim, this thesis will examine not only the situation in England but also three representative jurisdictions in the United States, namely Florida, California, and Michigan, which adopt three different approaches to voluntary promises. While the State of California developed a model via the unilateral contract analysis, the State of Michigan adopted the principle of legitimate expectation model (akin to that recognized in public law in England). Florida, however, remained loyal to the orthodox bilateral contract approach and, in a more similar trend, to the English approach. The contribution of this thesis is, therefore, not limited to exploring the question of what constitutes an enforceable promise in English employment law or highlighting that the current approaches adopted by English courts have been incoherent, but also explores any possible development that may be open to English courts to adopt and maintain a coherent approach. This possibility will be addressed by examining the adoption of either a unilateral contract approach to voluntary promises or the adoption of public law principles, via the doctrine of legitimate expectation as a further development of the implied duty of trust and confidence, which can be injected into the private law of employment. It will further examine whether the US legal approach has achieved the desired coherence in its legal approach to these voluntary promises, or whether there are theoretical principles in English law, through contract law or public law principles, that could achieve a more coherent approach. It will show how adopting the doctrine of legitimate expectation, as a principle derived from public law, in employment law and thereby recognizing the hierarchy of interests that employees may have, based on proportionality, could resolve the incoherent approach to voluntary promises.

This thesis endeavours to answer the following question: is there a viable and workable model for regulating workplace grievances and disciplinary action (EDG), the end objective of which is enhanced business competitiveness by encouraging partnerships at work, or greater levels of organisational commitment behaviour? This thesis argues that the answer to that question may be yes, if the regulation applied can encourage employers to deal with EDG in a way that employees are likely to perceive as fair. This is a challenging objective for law makers. Current regulation of EDG does not and probably cannot achieve the high levels of fairness perception that the partnership model requires. This thesis argues that, in order to rectify this problem, there must be a shift away from formulating employment regulation with a blinkered eye on worker protection, and towards a more sophisticated model which views worker protection against unfair treatment as beneficial in-so-far as it promotes fairness perceptions, and the resulting benefits of a productive and innovative workforce. This recalibration of the regulatory compass calls for a legal framework which allows the parties to formulate a reflexive and self-regulating approach to EDG; a framework according to which the parties will work to prevent and resolve disputes in a manner which accounts for their particular working environment, and the unique circumstances of each dispute or grievance. The new regulatory model that is proposed in this thesis will provide employers with the opportunity to be immune from the tribunals‘ jurisdiction relating to EDG. Immunity will apply where the employer can demonstrate that they have in place and follow certain methods and practices for managing EDG which are likely to lead to fairness at work, and therefore a higher degree of fairness perceptions.

Private international law has traditionally been perceived as a field of law concerned with resolving individual private disputes and achieving private justice and fairness in individual cases. This dissertation challenges this view by examining the systemic function of European private international law of employment, one of allocating and protecting regulatory (i.e. legislative and adjudicatory) authority of states in the field of labour law, thus maintaining and managing the diversity of European national labour law systems and safeguarding the objectives of uniform and harmonised EU employment legislation. This dissertation also explores the changes that the ‘Europeanization’ of private international law of employment has brought about in the traditional rules and perception in this field of law in England. In addition to introducing special rules of jurisdiction in employment matters that had not existed before, the European private international law instruments have largely merged the traditionally perceived contractual, statutory and tortious claims into one type of claim for choice-of-law purposes, thereby also abolishing concurrent causes of action. The conceptualisation of this field of law in terms of its regulatory function reveals something about the nature of private international law as a whole. The fact that European private international law of employment performs a regulatory function is a piece of evidence for the proposition that the division between the ‘private’ and the ‘public’, traditionally perceived as embedded in the foundations of the discipline and even expressed in its very name, has faded away.

The period from 1830 to 1853 has been called the age of paradox, the age in which the beliefs in Laissez-faire and state intervention alternately determined the legislation and attitude of Parliament. This was the case, for example, in the Repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 and the Ten Hours' Act of 1847. Historians of the early 1900's, emphasizing the ruthless individualism of the period, frequently credited the Earl of Shaftesbury with single-handedly forcing exceptions on a Laissez-faire age. More recent writers, recognizing the work of Bentham and Chadwick, see two antithetical trends, Both these groups, looking more to events than to beliefs, fail to explain the seeming inconsistency of the men who voted in favour of both the Bill of 1846 and the Bill of 1847. This thesis attempts to show, through a study of the controversy over Factory Legislation between 1830 and 1853, the development of a political theory justifying both Repeal and Ten Hours. It is a study of public opinion as seen in the pamphlets, periodicals, newspapers, books, speeches and popular agitations and of the work and opinions of the Factory Inspectors, The attitude towards Government in the early 1800's was strongly influenced by the classical economist's popularization of Adam Smith's teaching. Gradually the condition of England made the country aware that an inflexible application of Laissez-faire was causing, or at least not remedying, the misery of the working class. The majority of men, however, continued to support Free Trade. Consequently, Laissez-faire was reinterpreted to comprehend the distinction between human wealth and commercial wealth, and to allow Government interference to increase the former, while still denying its efficacy to increase the latter; that is, to permit interference in the internal relations of industry while continuing to deny it in the external.

This thesis seeks to answer how and why legal institutions, in particular laws, sustain authoritarianism in China. This thesis questions the paradox of law as domination and resistance: laws sustaining the CPC’s adaptive authoritarianism, or opening up avenues for political contestation and bringing about political change. It does so through the study of the political role of labour laws in China, combining an institutionalist perspective with a law and society approach. First, it argues that labour laws have been developed to support the capitalist economy, enforcing property rights and institutionalizing the rule of the Party-state. Second, through ethnographic-oriented research of three case studies of legal aid/labour non-governmental organizations (LAL NGOs) in Beijing, it demonstrates that labour laws, lawyers and LAL NGOs fulfil regime-supportive functions that both display and enable the adaptiveness of the CPC’s authoritarianism. Lawyers and LAL NGOs work within the law to protect workers’ rights and to improve the legal framework, helping to contain labour disputes and maintain social stability. Third, it finds that the legal definitions of rights contrast with workers’ conceptions of rights, the former being based on a capitalist rationale, while the latter is based on concepts of morality, fairness, equality, and on workers’ socio-economic conditions. Studying workers’ perceptions, understandings and uses of the law shows that some workers disagree with the premises of the labour laws, do not find the laws useful for a variety of reasons, and distrust the legal system, putting into question the legitimacy of such institutions of governance. I find that, according to popular conceptions of rights, workers act outside and against the law. The pitfall of the CPC’s ‘adaptive governance’ lies in its simplification of social order into rational legal order, omitting popular conceptions of rights and coherent forms of action that the same laws try to dismiss. Therefore, the space for transformative political action, either to challenge capital or the Party-state, rests outside and against the law.

This thesis explores the terms and conditions of the standard employment contract (POEA-SEC) for overseas Filipino seafarers. The contract, and the workers’ experience of it, is studied as an institutional arrangement prescribed by the Philippine government for the deployment of seafarers as contractual workers in the global labour market. This study aims to answer questions posed at the outset of this research on the enforcement and implementation of the POEA-SEC and its effectiveness in protecting the welfare and well-being of seafarers. This research examined the views, perceptions and experiences of seafarers and other major stakeholders in relation to their use of the POEA-SEC. The process of approval of the POEA-SEC was used as a case study to generate qualitative data. Multiple approaches such as legal analysis, semi-structured interviews, site observation, and focus groups were employed to gather evidence. Participants all came from the Philippines, a developing country in Southeast Asia. The thesis argues that the POEA-SEC is essentially an economic arrangement, which is fundamentally constructed to capture the remittance of workers. The contract is insufficient to address the problems associated with the vulnerability of the working conditions currently experienced by Filipino seafarers. Deploying the seafarers as short-term, contractual and cheap labour under the POEA-SEC undermines long established labour protection legislation, which is designed to protect the rights of workers to, for example, security of tenure and competitive rates of employment. The experience of the seafarers on-board the ship suggests that the contract cannot intercede in a beneficial way and falls short as a legal document to protect Filipino seafarers. The contract is remote from seafarers, merely symbolic and systematically fails to address seafarer issues, such as fatigue, stress and anxiety which affect their health and well-being. What is reflected in the inadequacy of the contract is the inability (and, it might be argued, collusion) of the Philippine state (and others, e.g. trade unions) to protect its citizens (as migrant labour) from the sometimes onerous demands of seafaring and the worst excesses of capital (shipowners and their proxies i.e. crewing agencies).

Le licenciement disciplinaire du salarié protégé est une activité sous contrôle. Elle implique d’autres acteurs que les parties au contrat. Elle ne concerne pas que l’employeur et le salarié. Le licenciement doit être autorisé par une décision préalable de l’inspection du travail. Cet acte administratif est contestable devant les juridictions administratives. Le législateur s’immisce aussi dans le processus par son pouvoir d’amnistie. Le contrôle du licenciement disciplinaire du salarié protégé mobilise toutes les forces de l’Etat et concerne les pouvoirs exécutifs, législatifs et judiciaires. Ce dispositif exceptionnel répond au besoin de protection d’une certaine catégorie de salarié. Par son activité syndicale, le salarié protégé est plus exposé au licenciement. Il n’en reste pas moins que la protection dont il dispose actuellement est déséquilibrée, surtout en matière disciplinaire. La procédure de licenciement disciplinaire du salarié protégé entraine pertes d’efficiences et violations de droits élémentaires. Elle ignore le principe de responsabilité au sein de l’entreprise, par la tolérance de fautes qui auraient pu justifier un licenciement. L’immixtion étatique dans le licenciement disciplinaire du salarié protégé s’appuie sur des mécanismes perfectibles. Il importe d’identifier les défauts majeurs de cette procédure : complexité administrative, indulgence parfois excessive face à la faute, méconnaissance de garanties procédurales élémentaires. Passé ce diagnostic, certaines pistes d’amélioration pourront être suggérées. A l’heure où les pouvoirs publics désirent créer un environnement compétitif pour les entreprises, l’optimisation du contrôle du licenciement du salarié protégé est sans doute une préoccupation d’avenir. / Pas de résumé en anglais