The Legal and Political System of England - Assignment Example

?Critically analyse the legal and political system of England regarding the case study Legal system of Britain in regard to employee relations 1a. UK law in regard to changes in listed companies The Companies Act 2006 is the legislative text regulating the key aspects of companies in UK. The above Act emphasizes on the value of articles of association for resolving various issues related to companies across Britain (Cahn 2010, p.18). The overall legal framework of UK in regard to the changes in companies is based on two different trends: the key principles of the common law, which is the legal system defining the legal rules and processes of certain countries, including UK, and the legal rules of European Union, of which UK is a member (Cahn 2010, p.19). The Financial Services Authority and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are the two bodies monitoring the enforcement of the Companies Act 2006 in UK (Cahn 2010, p.19). It should be noted that the Companies Act 2010 contains strict rules in regard to a series of issues, such as ‘the involvement of directors in the trading of their companies’ securities’ (Cahn 2010, p.19) or the approval of critical transactions by the shareholders (Cahn 2010, p.19). However, the key mission of the above Act, as of company law in UK in general, is ‘to facilitate the operation of market forces’ (Hicks and Goo 2008, p.12). This trend is made clear in the following fact: privatization of companies in UK is continuously developed, mostly through the increase of employee share schemes across UK (Hicks and Goo 2008, p.12). The pressure on companies for aligning their activities with existing laws can be differentiated, under the influence of contradicting interests (for example, the interests of employees as opposed to those of shareholders) and the need for securing competition. 1b. UK law and employee relations One of the most important characteristics of the legal framework of employee relations in UK is its inability to secure employee rights; the fact that the existing laws focusing on employee relations in UK are limited, compared to other countries, is considered as the key reason for the above phenomenon. Moreover, the laws related to employee relations seem to favour rather the employer, an assumption verified through the following fact: traditionally, the length of employment period has been a key term for deciding the right of employees across UK to ask for compensation in case of unfair dismissal (Hollinshead, Nicholls and Tailby 2002, p.519). Even employees in fixed term contracts are often asked to waive their rights to claim compensation in case of dismissal because of redundancy (Hollinshead, Nicholls and Tailby 2002, p.519). Moreover, for the UK labour law, the rules related to employee relations can be applied only in cases of employees who work on the basis of a contract (Countouris 2007, p.78). This means that the UK labour law does not protect employees who work without an employment contract. In most European countries, employees’ rights are protected even if there is no employment contract; for instance, certain social security rights are recognized to employees who work without employment contract (Countouris, 2007, p.78). On the other hand, there is a series of legal texts addressing various employee relations’ issues; for example the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Wages Act 1986 (Countouris 2007, p.78-79). When evaluating the decision of Marks and Spencer to announce the closure of its stores in France just before the meeting with the employees’ representatives, reference should be made to the following fact: indeed, Marks and Spencer is primarily bound by the UK labour law. The application, though, of the labour laws of the host country, France, where the firm’s stores are located, cannot be excluded especially at the level that the local laws would be in opposition with the UK relevant legal rules. Marks and Spencer operates globally. This means that the regulation of the company’s various aspects would be affected not only by the legislation of the home country, UK, but also by the laws of the host countries; the application of agreements arranged between the company and the employees in one or more offices of the organization is also possible (Foot and Hook 2008, p.325). In the context of the UK law such arrangements, which are usually developed between the organization and the agency in which employees are subscribed, are acceptable but only if they are not opposed with existing labour legislation (Foot and Hook 2008, p.325). 2. Employee relations and political system in Britain In order to understand whether Marks Spencer would be able to proceed to such organizational practices in UK, i.e. to the sudden closure of its stores and the dismissal of its employees, it would be necessary to refer to the political context of employee relations in Britain. The framework of industrial relations in Britain is distinguished in two major parts: its formal part, refers to the role of state in defining the terms of employment and proposing solutions in industrial disputes and the informal part, which refers to the role of the trade unions in the development of collective bargaining processes (Singh 2011, p.51). The above two systems are in continuous conflict (Singh 2011, p.51), a problem that affects the employee relations system in UK. Moreover, collectivism, as a form of opposition against unfair labour practices has not been well established in Britain, despite the important contribution of trade unions in resolving industrial disputes across the country (Deery 1999, p.5). In any case, the employee relations system of Britain is highly differentiated from the similar systems of other European countries (Industrial Systems Research 2003). In Britain, unlikely from other European countries, labour relations are characterized by high unionization and the high involvement of the government in industrial disputes (Industrial Systems Research 2003, p.54), as also explained above; moreover, the enforcement of legal rules focusing on employee relations is often problematic (Industrial Systems Research 2003, p.54). The last decades though, changes have been noted in the industrial relations context of UK; ‘no strike deals and arbitration’ (Industrial Systems Research 2003, p.54) have been highly developed aiming to control the expansion of industrial disputes. The changes in the industrial relations in UK have been highly related to the changes in the country’s political framework (Industrial Systems Research 2003). On the other hand, Gennard and Judge (2005) note that the structure and the development of employee relations in Britain is highly affected by the country’s political environment. It is explained that the choices of Conservative government in UK have been highly differentiated by those of the Labour government (Gennard and Judge 2005); Conservatives have been focused on the limitation of public spending (Gennard and Judge 2005, p.77), while Labours accept a greater flexibility in collective bargaining favouring employees rather than employers (Gennard and Judge 2005, p.77). The above differences in regard to political decisions related to employee relations in Britain sets barriers in the development of effective collective bargaining processes (Gennard and Judge 2005, p.77). Farnham (2000) agrees that the political framework of each country is likely to have a strong influence on the local employee relations’ framework. In the above case, the term politics, as involved in the formulation of a country’s employee relations system, can be given the following explanation: ‘politics is the process by which societies resolve and manage conflicts about the distribution of power’ (Farnham 2000, p.162). In other words, politics, as a social process, is not related just to the political decisions of a specific country, but rather to all the events and the social teams that are involved, directly or indirectly, in critical social disputes. In Britain, the country’s political system, emphasizes on ‘the production of rules that govern society’ (Farnham 2000, p.162), meaning all aspects of the society, including employee relations. In other words, in the above country politics is closely related to critical social decisions; from this point of view, in UK the influence of employee relations from the political trends of each period is unavoidable; it is implied that the perspectives for employee relations that favour the employees are more when the country’s government supports such policies, i.e. when the Labour party has the control of the country. In accordance with the above, the potentials of Marks and Spencer to proceed without notice to the closure of its stores and the dismissal of employees would be high in Britain, meaning that such policy would be, at a first level, justified by the local laws taking into consideration the high risks of the organization in case of the continuation of its operations in a particular area. However, the intervention of the trade unions would ensure that employees would be treated fairly, in the context of existing legislation. The involvement of the Courts in the relevant dispute would further help to secure the rights of employees. Even if the existing industrial relations framework in UK is rather favourable for employers, still, employees have the right to bring their claims to the Courts trying to have a fair treatment; for example, in the Wilson and Palmer case, the Court of Appeal held that the practice of the employer to pursue his employees to switch from collective agreement to a personal agreement has been against the law, even if a promise for bonus was given (Deery 1999, p.5). References Cahn, A., Donald, D. (2010) Comparative Company Law: Text and Cases on the Laws Governing Corporations in Germany, the UK and the USA. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Countouris, N. (2007) The changing law of the employment relationship: comparative analyses in the European context. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Deery, S. (1999) Employment relations: individualisation and union exclusion: an international study. Leichhardt: Federation Press. Dorrenbacher, C., Geppert, M. (2011) Politics and Power in the Multinational Corporation: The Role of Institutions, Interests and Identities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Farnham, D. (2000) Employee relations in context. London: CIPD Publishing. Foot, M., Hook, C. (2008) Introducing Human Resource Management. Essex: Pearson Education. Gennard, J., Judge, G. (2005) Employee relations. London: CIPD Publishing. Hicks, A., Goo, S. (2008) Cases and materials on company law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hollinshead, G., Nicholls, P., Tailby, S. (2002) Employee relations. Essex: Pearson Education. Industrial Systems Research (2003) Manufacturing in Britain: a survey of factors affecting growth and performance. Manchester: Industrial Systems Research. Singh, P. (2011) Employee Relations Management. New Delhi: Pearson Education India. Read More