The purpose of this thesis is to assess the impact of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (the Charter) on the employment relationship. The Charter has long been praised for its inclusion of socio-economic rights alongside traditional civil and political rights. It might have been thought, therefore, that the Charter would be a particularly potent tool in the employment context, characterised as it is, by the continuous interaction between economic and social rights. However, to draw an analogy from George Orwell's Animal Farm, although 'all rights are equal, some rights are more equal than others'. Not only does the Charter distinguish between 'rights' and 'principles', but the EU Court of Justice (CJEU) seems actively to prioritise the Charter's economic freedoms over the social rights. This thesis focuses on the consequences of this variable geometry for the regulation of the employment relationship. In particular, it examines the widening gap between contractual autonomy/business freedom as a fundamental right found in article 16 of the Charter and the employment rights contained in the Solidarity Title. Of particular concern from an employee's perspective is the decision of the CJEU in the case of Alemo-Herron and its progeny. In a series of highly deregulatory judgments, the CJEU has found that the employee-protective aim of the relevant legislation was incompatible with the employer's freedom to conduct a business. At the same time, the CJEU has been reluctant to invoke the Charter's employment rights to give an employee-friendly reading to legislation. The effect of this divergence for the employment relationship is explored in two ways. On a micro level, the thesis looks to the very practical or 'day to day' influence of fundamental rights at various stages in the life cycle of the employment contract. It addresses the relationship between individually agreed employment terms and fundamental rights sources. The macro level considers the broader question of the effect of fundamental rights on the EU's (or the State's) ability to regulate the employment relationship more generally. It is demonstrated that there may be a systemic problem with fundamental economic freedoms being prioritised over social rights, namely the employment provisions of the Charter.

Fixed-term employment has become increasingly common in the Swedish labour market, despite that the stated main rule is permanent employment. The phenomenon affects different groups in society, especially since statistics indicate that it is mainly women, young and foreign-born people who have fixed-term contracts. Sweden was notified from the European Commission for not having lived up to the minimum requirements that the Council Directive 1999/70/EC framework agreement on fixed-term work issued. Several years of correspondence resulted in that Sweden was faced with the risk to stand in front of the Court of Justice of the European Union on charges of infringement if the law was not changed. A new law was presented May 1 2016. Lawmakers had here taken up by the Directive's requirement of maximum total duration of successive fixed-term employment contracts. This resulted in giving 5 § of the employment protection act, a bigger possibility to convert fixed- term contracts into permanent employment contracts than before. The purpose of this paper is to look at the differences between different social groups and job security, and to examine, illuminate and analyze the problem of fixed-term employment for different groups of workers and to set this in relation to the EU Directive on fixed-term. To answer the purpose of the essay and research questions the doctrinal method has been used to interpret, investigate and determine the applicable law. The new legislation has made it much more difficult for employers to misuse of fixed-term contracts, but it is very difficult to interpret the provisions of the law. In my opinion, unnecessarily complicated which is an important factor that can make the new legislation ineffective.

Effects of selection risk on sex discrimination in hiring were investigated. Ninety-six male and female educational administration graduate students rated ficticious resumes on suitability for hiring for the female-oriented position of secondary school teacher. Sex and selection risk level were varied, with sex of rater as an assigned factor. Analysis of variance yielded significant main effects for sex (p < .01) and selection risk level (p < .05). All ratings were lower in high selection-risk situations, with males preferred over females across both levels of risk. Results suggested that ratings were based on a stereotype of female inferiority in work efficiency, overriding job sex-orientation as a decision factor.

Thesis (LLM. (Labour Law)) -- University of Limpopo, 2012 / Since the advent of constitutional democracy, there has been a steady growth in the volume of employment and labour protection legislation.1 More than a decade following the enactment of the new labour code has witnessed an avalanche of decisions of courts and arbitration awards of labour adjudicatory tribunals.2 Many of them involve unfair dismissals generally, unfair suspensions,3 residual unfair labour practices,4 disputes over promotion hinging on affirmative action, employment equity and unfair discrimination,5 the recurrent problem of jurisdiction,6 and review of arbitration proceedings.7 While wage and disputes8 on the one hand, and strikes9 on the other will always feature as perennial events in the labour-management calendar, truly important interface over several years has been dismissal of employees for automatically unfair reasons. 1 See eg, Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995; Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997; Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998; Educators Employment Act 76 of 1988; Promotion of Administrative Justice 3 of 2000; Protected Disclosures Act 26 of 2000; Public Service Act (Proc 103 of 1994) Skills Development Act 97 of 1998; Skills Development Levies Act 9 of 1999; Unemployment Insurance Act 30 of 1966; The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000. 2 See generally; Zondo, R ‘The new Labour Courts and labour law: The first seven months of the new LRA’ (1998) 19 ILJ 686; Wallis, M.J.D. ‘The new era – How decisive is the break from the past (1999) 20 ILJ 902. 3 Ngwenya v Premier of KwaZulu-Natal [2001] 8 BLLR 924 (LC); MEC for Tourism Affairs: Free State v Nondumo & others (2005) 26 ILJ 1337 (LC); SAPU & another v Minister of Safety & Security & another (2005) 26 ILJ 524 (LC). 4Department of Finance v CCMA & others (2003) 24 ILJ 1969 (LAC). 5 See eg: Minister of Finance & another v Van Heerden (2005) 26 ILJ 1593 (CC). For a detailed discussion: Zondo, R ‘The new Labour Courts and labour law: The first seven months of the new LRA’ (1998) 19 ILJ 686; Wallis, M.J.D. ‘The new era – How decisive is the break from the past (1999) 20 ILJ 902. 6 See eg: Old Mutual Life Assurance Co SA Ltd v Gumbi (2007) 28 ILJ 1499 (SCA). See also Pretorius SC, P ‘A dual system of dismissal law: Comment on Boxer Superstores Mthatha & another v Mbenya (2007) 28 ILJ 2209 (SCA) (2007) 28 ILJ 2172; 7 See generally Carephone (Pty) Ltd v Marcus NO & others1999 (3) SA 304 (LAC); Sidumo & another v Rustenburg Mines Ltd & others (2007) 28 ILJ 2405 (CC). 8 See generally, Du Toit, D ‘What is the future of collective bargaining (and Labour Law) in South Africa?’ (2007) 28 ILJ 1405; Landman, A ‘The duty to bargain – an old weapon pressed into service’ (2004) 25 ILJ 39. 9 Modise v Steve’s Spar Blackheath (2000) 21 ILJ 519 (LAC); PSA v Minister of Justice & Constitutional Development & others [2001] 11 BLLR 1250 (LC). See also Myburgh, JF ‘100 years of strike law’ (2004) 25 ILJ 962. 8 In pith and substance, the study concerned with dismissals that undermine the fundamental values that labour relations community in our country depends on to regulate its very existence. In the first part of the study, the constitutional and statutory framework will be briefly considered. An early appreciation of the constitutionalisation of the right to fair labour practices will provide a point of reference for evolving contemporary labour law corpus on automatically unfair dismissals. The second part takes a frontal examination of novel questions of constitutional vintage concerning automatically unfair dismissals. In turn, this raises questions of dismissals for exercising statutory employment rights. The other aspects are instances of employee victimisation resulting from lodging a grievance, protected disclosures, as well as trade union activities. Also arising are dismissals that can be ascribed to unfair discrimination. While the first part of this study concentrates on those situations where the employer has victimised and/or dismissed for exercising statutory rights, part three examines that question which has vexed the Labour Court, Labour Appeal, and to a lesser extent the Supreme Court of Appeal in recent times, the intersection between automatically unfair dismissals on the one hand, and corporate restructuring, on the other. In effect, the contentious issues naturally call for discussion: the uneasy relationship between corporate restructuring and collective bargaining, dismissal of protected strikers for operational reasons, dismissals in support of employer’s demands as well as dismissals of transferred employees consequent to transfer of undertaking. Before moving onto the heavyweight topic of automatically unfair dismissals, it is perhaps appropriate at this stage to reflect on the constitutional and statutory framework underpinning the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995.