Agitating for Part‐Time Workers' Rights

Abstract

ConclusionsIn 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 e m p l ~y m e n t .~~ 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.59And 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 A d a m 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?'