Stedman v United Kingdom (1997) 23 EHRR CD 168 is a UK labour law case, which deals with religious freedom, and the duty of an employer to let religious people have Sundays off.
Ms Stedman, a Christian, had worked at an employment agency since 1990. From December 1991 the applicant, along with other staff, was required to work on Sundays. In the period from December 1991 to May 1992 she worked on 10 out of a total of 25 Sundays. On 27 April 1992 Ms. Stedman gave the manager one month's notice that she was no longer prepared to work on Sunday. On 7 May 1992 she was told that her contract of employment was to be amended to include Sunday as a normal working day, on a rota basis, with no enhanced rate of pay. The applicant refused to sign the new contract and said that she would continue working under her existing contract. On 4 June 1992 she was dismissed after 22 months of employment, and paid one month's pay in lieu of notice.
She claimed this was a breach of her right to freedom of religion under Art.9 ECHR. Under Art.1 the MS must secure Convention rights. She also complained of breach of her right to a family life under Art.8, because she was bound to work some Sundays, and her husband did not.
The European Commission of Human Rights (i.e. the case was not admitted to the actual court) stated by a majority that Ms Stedman resigned because she did not want to work. She was not dismissed because of her religion. Even if she had been employed by the state and dismissed in similar circumstances, there would not have even been an interference with her Art 9(1) rights. The application was ‘manifestly ill founded’ under Art 27(2) ECHR.
For Art 8, ‘given the almost inevitable compromise and balance between work and family commitments, particularly in families where both partners work’ there was no interference, to constitute any violation. Other challenges under Art.14 and Art.6 were similarly dismissed, and the case was inadmissible.
United Kingdom labour law regulates the relations between workers, employers and trade unions. People at work in the UK can rely upon a minimum set of employment rights, which are found in Acts of Parliament, Regulations, common law and equity. This includes the right to a minimum wage of £9.50 for over-23-year-olds from April 2022 under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. The Working Time Regulations 1998 give the right to 28 days paid holidays, breaks from work, and attempt to limit long working hours. The Employment Rights Act 1996 gives the right to leave for child care, and the right to request flexible working patterns. The Pensions Act 2008 gives the right to be automatically enrolled in a basic occupational pension, whose funds must be protected according to the Pensions Act 1995.
In employment law, constructive dismissal, also called constructive discharge or constructive termination, occurs when an employee resigns as a result of the employer creating a hostile work environment. Since the resignation was not truly voluntary, it is, in effect, a termination. For example, when an employer places extraordinary and unreasonable work demands on an employee to obtain their resignation, this can constitute a constructive dismissal.
The Employment Rights Act 1996 is a United Kingdom Act of Parliament passed by the Conservative government to codify existing law on individual rights in UK labour law.
Eweida v United Kingdom[2013] ECHR 37 is a UK labour law decision of the European Court of Human Rights, concerning the duty of the government of the United Kingdom to protect the religious rights of individuals under the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court found that the British government had failed to protect the complainant's right to manifest her religion, in breach of Article 9 of the European Convention. For failing to protect her rights, the British government was found liable to pay non-pecuniary damages of €2,000, along with a costs award of €30,000.
United Kingdom administrative law is part of UK constitutional law that is designed through judicial review to hold executive power and public bodies accountable under the law. A person can apply to the High Court to challenge a public body's decision if they have a "sufficient interest", within three months of the grounds of the cause of action becoming known. By contrast, claims against public bodies in tort or contract are usually limited by the Limitation Act 1980 to a period of 6 years.
R v Millais School Governing Body [2007] EWHC 1698 (Admin) is an English discrimination law case concerning freedom of religion. It was decided under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Copsey v WWB Devon Clays Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 932; [2005] IRLR 811 is a UK employment discrimination law case, concerning the right to freedom of religion under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Redfearn v Serco Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 659 and Redfearn v United Kingdom [2012] ECHR 1878 is a UK labour law and European Court of Human Rights case. It held that UK law was deficient in not allowing a potential claim based on discrimination for one's political belief. Before the case was decided, the Equality Act 2010 provided a remedy to protect political beliefs, though it had not come into effect when this case was brought forth.
Ahmad v United Kingdom (1982) 4 EHRR 126 is a UK labour law and UK constitutional law case on race and religious discrimination. It upholds the view that special allowances do not need to be made by employers for people who want to follow particular religious practices, because people are free to choose their jobs. However, it suggests that employers should give genuine and serious consideration about ways to accommodate their employees requests, even if they cannot ultimately do so.
European labour law regulates basic transnational standards of employment and partnership at work in the European Union and countries adhering to the European Convention on Human Rights. In setting regulatory floors to competition for job-creating investment within the Union, and in promoting a degree of employee consultation in the workplace, European labour law is viewed as a pillar of the "European social model". Despite wide variation in employment protection and related welfare provision between member states, a contrast is typically drawn with conditions in the United States.
Demir and Baykara v Turkey [2008] ECHR 1345 is a landmark European Court of Human Rights case concerning Article 11 ECHR and the right to engage in collective bargaining. It affirmed the fundamental right of workers to engage in collective bargaining and take collective action to achieve that end.
Wilson v United Kingdom [2002] ECHR 552 is a United Kingdom labour law and European labour law case concerning discrimination by employers against their workers who join and take action through trade unions. After a long series of appeals through the UK court system, the European Court of Human Rights held that ECHR article 11 protects the fundamental right of people to join a trade union, engage in union related activities and take action as a last resort to protect their interests.
Gisda Cyf v Barratt [2010] UKSC 41 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Ford v Warwickshire CC [1983] 2 AC 71 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal, governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Collective action in the United Kingdom including the right to strike in UK labour law is the main support for collective bargaining. Although the right to strike has attained the status, since 1906, of a fundamental human right, protected in domestic case law, statute, the European Convention on Human Rights and international law, the rules in statute have generated significant litigation. The "right of workers to engage in a strike or other industrial action" is expressly recognised in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 section 180, and has been recognised repeatedly by the Court of Appeal as "a fundamental human right"., and the House of Lords.
Ladele v London Borough of Islington [2009] EWCA Civ 1357 is a UK labour law case concerning discrimination against same sex couples by a religious person in a public office.
R v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013] UKSC 68 is a United Kingdom constitutional law and labour law case that found the conduct of the Department for Work and Pensions "workfare" policy was unlawful. Caitlin Reilly, an unemployed geology graduate, and Jamieson Wilson, an unemployed driver, challenged the Jobcentre policy of making the unemployed work for private companies to get unemployment income. The outcome of the case affects over 3,000 claimants and entails around £130m unpaid benefits.
Young, James and Webster v United Kingdom [1981] ECHR 4 is a UK labour law case, concerning freedom of association and the closed shop. It found that the closed shop was incompatible with the convention, although it does not prevent fair share agreements, or automatic enrollment in union membership with an opt-out.
Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Botham v Ministry of Defence[2011] UKSC 58 is a UK labour law case, concerning wrongful dismissal.
Copland v United Kingdom [2007] ECHR 253 is an ECHR case about UK labour law, English contract law case and health care in the UK.