When the labour law does not adequately define the employment relationship as in the case of compliance and enforcement inadequacies attributed to health and safety legislation in the UK, there is bound to be problems in interpreting and understanding the very law that governs the employment relationship. In other words, ambiguity leads to personal and often selfish interpretations of the law. Thus it is possible that employers and employees happen to adopt individualistic interpretations of the law. As for the disagreement between the two viewpoints, it can be said that a point of reconciliation would be reached when it becomes mutually desirable for them to agree on those points that immediately matter for both.
Despite the general vagueness of many labour laws and social security provisions in the UK employers have got into recruitment drives with the intention of a sign in employment contracts on this particular premise, i.e. they come to a mutual agreement on their individual understanding of the law. For instance, the workplace health and safety legislation in the UK is variously interpreted by individual employers and employees. In the same way, the minimum wage rules have been often violated by employers on the ground that they are amenable to a variety of interpretations (Towers, 1999). . The Employment Individualistic Relationship.
1. Blyton, P & Turnbull, P 2004, The Dynamics of Employee Relations, Macmillan, Hampshire.
2. Brown, W, Deakin, S, Nash, D & Oxenbridge, S 2000, ‘The Employment Contract: From Collective Procedures to Individual Rights’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 611-629.
3. Cully, M, Woodland, S, O’Reilly, A & Dix, G 1999, Britain at Work, Routledge, London.
4. Edwards, P (ed.) 2003, Industrial Relations Theory and Practice, 2nd edn, Blackwell, Oxford.
5. Guest, D & Conway, N 1999, ‘Peering into the Black Hole: The Downside of the New Employment Relations in the UK’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 367-389.
6. Green, F 1997, ‘Union Recognition and Paid Holiday Entitlement’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 243-255.
7. Guest, D & Peccei, R 1994, ‘The Nature and Causes of Effective Human Resource Management’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 219-242.
8. Healy, G 1997, ‘The Industrial Relations of Appraisal: the Case of Teachers’, Industrial Relations Journal, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 206-220.
9. Healy, G 1999, ‘The Trade Union Role in Career Development: a membership perspective’, Industrial Relations Journal, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 212-228.
10. Hollinshead, G, Nichols, P & Tailby, S 2003, Employee Relations, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
11. Kelly, J & Waddington, J 1995, ‘New Prospects for British Labor’, Organization, vol. 2, no. 3/4, pp. 415-426.
12. Kessler, I & Purcell, J 2003, ‘Individualism and Collectivism in Industrial Relations’ in Edwards, P 2003, Industrial Relations - Theory and Practice, Blackwell, Oxford.
13. McKay, S 2001, ‘Annual Review Article 2000 – Between Flexibility and Regulation: Rights Equality and Protection at Work’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 39, no.2, pp. 285-303.
14. Rose, E 2008, Employment Relations, Financial Times/Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
15. Salamon, M 2000, Industrial Relations: Theory & Practice, Financial Times/Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
16. Storey, J 2001, Human Resource Management: a critical text, 2nd edn, Routledge, London.
17. Terry, M 1999, ‘Systems of collective employee representation in non-union firms in the UK’, Industrial Relations Journal, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 16-30.
18. Towers, B 1999 ‘. . . the most lightly regulated labor market . . .’ The UK’s third statutory recognition procedure’, Industrial Relations Journal, vol. 30, no. 2. pp. 82-95.
19. Turnbull, P & Wass, V 1998, ‘Marksist management: sophisticated human relations in a high street retail store’, Industrial Relations Journal, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 98-102.
20. Thompson & Ackroyd 1995, ‘All quiet on the workplace front? A critique of recent trends in British Industrial Sociology’, Sociology, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 615-633.
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples