Talk:United Kingdom labour law/Archive 01

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(From anonymous 195.93.21.102)[edit]

I'm new to wikipedia - and I think it's great! I will look into getting an account so I can participate properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.7 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 20 August 2005

Re.'Employment Law' article[edit]

My edits. They were not meant to be wide of the mark (they were over the status of EAT decisions - apologies!) but I did feel the article was very brief at that stage, so added what I considered to be accurate and relevant. I can see that the section on unfair dismissal is improving steadily but in the process it is beginning to take over and becoming an article in itself.

What has not been included: Alternatives to compensation awards (re-engagement, reinstatement, orders made, additional awards made in lieu if employer disregards - which they can, enforcement not being the same thing as judgment, difficulties getting compensation paid etc etc). Even though 'uncommon' these possible outcomes ought to be mentioned for completeness somewhere, I feel.

What about the extending the current references to the 'main Acts', should this not also include Equal Pay, Sex Discrimination - indeed a 'list of tribunal juridictions' as all fall under 'Employment Law' [UK] and are concerned with much more wide ranging issues affecting the development of law are they not?

There are no references (eg to the legislation itself): One could start with a new article here ('Employment Rights Act 1996'?) describing what's in it and link from the current article to there. Other Acts could be described in this way. Alternatively, maybe the DTi.gov site could be used to provide links to the legislation instead, and a 'Wiki' (entitled 'Employment Legislation [UK]'?)could simply 'summarise' what the DTi says about these Acts and link to individual DTi pages in each 'section' concerned with a given Act. In this way the range of Employment laws could be presented quite concisely without the reader having to leave the article, unnecessarily

(On how to produce precise effects on pages: I appreciate that one way to see how this is done is to click on 'edit' and study the raw text (without changing anything!) of random or 'interesting' looking pages)

Thank you for your edifications..

Regards. Paul White

'References' added[edit]

As you can see I've now got an account. I've added what I think are two helpful links to one of the DTi's comprehensive online guides covering the 'two stage' description of UD in the preceding section. I didn't know if referencing from the body like this is allowed, but it looks the right thing to do to me!

Regards. Paul White

Maximum Compensatory award[edit]

I have edited the maximum compensatory award to reflect the figure applying from 1/2/05 £56,800 Source: http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/pay/limits-pl827b.htm#5

Regards Amica

Concerning the latest chanages to the UK employment law bit:[edit]

I think that the description of the 'process' at tribunal now has got a bit long and over descriptive. And the phrasing is a bit odd. We are now referring to a 'claimant' bringing a case and later an 'employee' being judged in relation to the case.

eg "Except where no qualifying time limit applies (as in the case of 'statutory rights') an employee needs to have worked for their employer for a least a year in order to make a complaint of unfair dismissal to an employment tribunal. In addition, a claimant may raise a complaint of discrimination without claiming dismissal or whilst also claiming dismissal but without one year of service."

Some references like: "after the ET3 response form has gone in" and "after the EDT and before the tribunal hearing." would seem to need some attention.

[What's an 'EDT' for instance?]

Also, where is now says

"Most tribunal offices however write to the claimant upon receipt of their claim form telling them that they have 14 days to show why their claim should be heard, otherwise the chairman will strike out the claim."

This sort of remark begs the question "Do they?". If you look at what this is saying it could be interpreted as meaning that tribunals write to people "most of the time, but not always" in such circumstances as a "service" rather than a requirement. Since everything a tribunal does is "judicable" they don't just write to anyone on a whim. There must be a reason in every case. This statement may be generally accurate but needs qualifying as it stands.

As I say it is now a bit 'wordy' and could do with some fileting. But I'm not going to fiddle with. I'll leave that the source or to others

Bye, bye! [Paul]

More Edits and change of title suggestion[edit]

Two minor edits: I have mentioned the statutory dispute resolution procedure and that the statutory cap does not apply to discrimination claims. Although the entry is looking very good, I think there is more work to be done. As the entry grows, it may be better to increase the breadth of the entry rather than its depth: for example Tribunal procedure and unfair dismissal might occupy their own pages in time.

The main body of the entry is about a specific aspect of Employment law: i.e. the issues arising out of the termination of employment. For my money an entry entitled 'British Labour Law' would benefit by dealing with the history of its development, its sources, the areas it covers, the institutions that affect it (eg trade unions, the EU, ILO etc.) and its future.

I recommend that the parts of this entry dealing with termination of employment should be sub-catorgorised as 'termination of employment' or something similar under the main banner of British Labour Law.

ravells

I notice that there has been a change in title to "British Labour Law". Almost no-one in England and Wales (and I doubt anyone anywhere else in the UK), uses "Labour Law" in this way. "Employment Law" is almost universal now. Why the change? Why not change to the more normal term? Francis Davey 23:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The two leading texts are titled Labour law, so this simply isn't true. People who insist on calling it "employment" law usually have some fickle political objection. Wikidea 10:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger[edit]

Please discuss the potential merger on the talk page of labour law. Thanks - Breadandroses 21:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


some basic information seems to be missing. Who are the judges or jury on an industrial tribunal, and how are they chosen ?

( In France they are elected by workers and by bosses) JM

Under-payment of wages & the law[edit]

If an employer intentionally consistently under-pays its workers, presenting the amount of wages paid as the correct amount (e.g. by reducing hours on wage slip or miscalculating) when the correct wages would be higher, is that a crime? I assume it is a crime- but what crime would it be? And who deals with that: OFT? Revenue? N-edits 16:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Rest Time[edit]

There is a certain amount of rest time each day stipulated, but what is the definition of rest? Does rest start when work ends, or when the worker arrives home? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.194 (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Health and Safety[edit]

Does a doctor's visit fall under health and safety? How about a visit to the dentist? Does the worker need to ask permission from the employer to visit a doctor or dentist? Is a visit to the doctor or dentist only permitted outside of working time, and if that is not possible, due to doctors not working, public transport not available at those times, does the worker need to use up holidays for visits to the doctor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.194 (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

British labour law and application in football/soccer[edit]

As you can see, there are cases where football clubs apply for work permit for some of its non-EU players. I heard somewhere about having played 70% of international games and the national team being on the top 70 of the FIFA rankings. Is there an article on this, or has it been added and deleted?

219.74.58.195 18:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool mineworker claim[edit]

Do we know where there the "The average life expectancy of a Liverpool mineworker was 30 years in 1900" claim comes from? It is an unreferenced claim in the caption of one of the images, Liverpool wasn't a big mining area so it is puzzling. I have asked this on the [Talk:Labour_law] page too...this is included in three articles to my knowledge. RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural emphasis[edit]

This page is really very detailed on the procedural path to a legal claim in a tribunal, and has almost nothing on substantive law. What does anyone think about putting the procedure into a separate page, and summarising it into a subsection here? Wikidea 23:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under construction[edit]

As one can see, I'm putting in lots of provisions, as markers which I'll get round to joining into sentences properly. I hope it's not unsightly, and I think at any rate, it's better than having nothing at all. Please help out if you've the time.Wikidea 13:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename?[edit]

Now lots of work is being done on this page, can it be renamed to refer to "Employment" rather than "labour" law? No-one in the field (and I am an employment barrister of some standing) calls it "labour law", unless they mean "collective employment law" and that is now a rarity. The present title is (I think) a hold-over from some USian terminology. Francis Davey (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've mooted this issue before, and I think the same answer is appropriate. The two leading textbooks are called Labour law and the title is well understood as it is. It may well be that at your particular chambers everyone calls it employment law, but I think if you stroll around, say, King's Bench Walk a bit you'd find some different views. It's simply untrue that no one in the field calls it labour law. I do. Wikidea 23:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The leading work in the field is "Harvey on Industrial Relations" (which goes neither way), there is no labour law society, there is an employment law bar association, an employment lawyers' association and the industrial law society. "Labour law" is not used (and "employment" is used) as a classification by bar mutual, chambers and partners, olpas and so on. Can you give an example of a chambers that does use "labour law" to refer to general employment law? I can't think of any, but if you have an example in mind a cite would be useful. I have practised from 5 chambers, "employment" not "labour" in all 5. Its the terminology used in ELBA and the ILS (both of which I have been a member of). When I have a moment I will chase down the textbooks mentioned in this article which I don't know. Francis Davey (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's very nice, but we already know people use both terms. You said nobody uses labour law, and that's just not true. I think that labour law is more appropriate, and better understood. The main reason, is that labour law tends to encompass more than 'employment law' does. Besides I bet I can think up as many and more examples that go in my favour, but that'd be a bit futile, wouldn't it. I think you shouldn't make the mistake of viewing usage of a term in legal practice as having a monopoly on correctness. If I were you I'd really be more worried about what the page has to say about labour/employment law, rather than the title. With all your experience (apart from your narrow view of terminology) you should be able to write this stuff best! When you chase down those books, why not use them to write something? Better that than waste time arguing with me about it.
By the way, I imagine they don't call it the Labour law society, because it'd be a bit confusing with the Society of labour lawyers! Wikidea 21:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Terminology is changing. When I studied few years ago, I took a course in 'Labour Law', but the textbooks I now use for my teaching are all titled 'Employment Law' (just as 'Industrial Relations' is increasingly called 'Employment Relations'). I don't think it matters that much how the article is called in the end, as long as there are redirects, and as long as this fact (different terminology being used) is mentioned somewhere in the introdction. Niels Wergin 18:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with the comments above with regard to the inappropriate name of this article. "British labour law" has two major defects: (1) the term "british" is a legal nonsense outside of the confines of nationality law, and (2) the term "labour law" is passé - the last Act to be passed with "labour" in its title was in 1976; it smacks of a bygone era of labour exchanges and the master/servant relationship. Leading titles such as Halsbury's and Selwyn make no reference to labour law. This article should be moved to either UK employment law or Employment law in the United Kingdom. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Dwelling.jpg[edit]

The image File:Dwelling.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name change[edit]

Hi. As a current law student reading Employment Law, it is becoming extremely apparent that the term "labour law" has fallen into disuse with England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I suggest that the page be moved to United Kingdom employment law or Employment Law of the United Kingdom (with a preference for the former) and the terminology in the article be changed to match (a simple find and replace would solve that) - provided prudence was used to ensure historical usage of the term remained in tact in the article). I know this is a suggestion last brought up in 2008, but I feel it is still , if not more so, relevant today. iComputerSaysNo 00:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I brought this up. Another editor suggested that "labour law" v "employment law" was, somehow, a political choice, but did not say which way or give any evidence. I don't have the energy to try to argue with him. I would want to seek consensus from other editors - if there are any interested. I, too, practised in employment law and found "labour law" rather archaic. Evidence for the usage is:

As a practitioner I can say that the phrase "labour law" is just not used by the professions. Francis Davey (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a practitioner with UK and global companies in the UK I am familiar with Labour Law as well as what I take to be a somewhat narrower field of Employment Law. It is true within organisations what is understood to govern their day to day activity and employment relationship is what in the UK at least we call Employment Law. However, if you look at legislation covered by this article it includes a much wider field of law not just that impacting on the employer and employee or worker. For example the conduct of trade unions, welfare legislation, tax, etc. Not all relationships between a worker and an organisation is an employment relationship governed by an employment contract. Workers may be engaged on a freelance or contract for services basis and such relationships are better understood as governed by labour legislation. There is also legislation impacting on the relationship between governments and iindividuals and their right to work in different jurisdictions which is much wider than just an employment relationship. Tmol42 (talk) 10:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, all those things are covered by the phrase "employment law" in all the examples I gave above. Employment lawyers would advise on all kinds of litigation that might arise in those contexts. In most cases they would count as "employment" for insurance purposes and so on. Collective employment law (trade unions etc) is a minority practice - because it is more rarely litigated - but it is still "employment law". Laws specifically addressing the treatment of "workers" (in the EU sense) are most often justiciable in employment tribunals (eg minimum wage legislation or working time). The phrase "employment law" is, as presently used in the UK, much wider than simply referring to individuals with contracts of employment properly so called. Francis Davey (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, you want some examples?
  • a member of a trade union is unjustly expelled: no employment relationship there. Labour law, but not employment law.
  • a volunteer is discriminated against on grounds of disability: the UKSC thinks there's no employment. But it's labour law.
  • a trade union seeks to go on strike to achieve political objectives. It is not a strike about terms and conditions of employment. It's not lawful in the UK, it's not employment law, but it's labour law.
  • the EU negotiates a trade deal with South Korea which includes a social clause to protect labour standards, like International Labour Organization Convention 89. Well, Francis, doesn't seem to me much employment law happening there. You've got no employee. You've got no employer. Frankly, you just don't have "employment law". Maybe you've never practised on these sorts of cases. But it's labour law, and it's the right term. Wikidea 13:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom labour law → United Kingdom employment law – See the above section for some discussion on the issue of a name change. This is a contientious discussion and i feel that a discussing it will not reslove anything, and a page move request will resolve the matter. I am studying law at university, and no text that I read considers "labour law" but only "employment law". Francis Davey has shown five examples of where "employment law" is preferred over "labour law" from eminent organisations and databases. He also brings his professional knowledge to explain that "employment law" is also used in relation to collective employment law. Following the goals of article titles: it is more recognisable and natural to name is "employment law" in British English and it is more precise. It can be argued that it is not as consistent in relation to other employment/labour law pages, but this is a language difference and refers to the situation in the UK in particular. iComputerSaysNo 08:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move - See my discussion above. I've seen no evidence that "labour law" is used nearly as much as "employment law" in practice. Francis Davey (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why it's called labour law[edit]

I'm pretty astonished that nobody asked me before this erroneous move was made. Sorry I hadn't notice, but it would have been courteous to ask. Francis has tried to make this point before, and the answers are all still the same. Labour law will always be the correct term, and his place in practice doesn't mean he's right. I could give you reasons why I know more if anyone cares to contact me privately, but that shouldn't be necessary.

1. It's called the International Labour Organization. I'm not sure anyone appreciated the significance of this point.
2. The two leading textbooks are called "Labour law" - these are Deakin and Morris and Collins, Ewing and McColgan. Then there are a variety of other names. It hasn't fallen into disuse: what a joke.
3. Technically the law of "employment" is reserved for individual labour relations: between employer and employee. Collective labour law, involving trade unions as well, is not captured by this term. So technically, the student above, and practitioners, have simply got their vocabulary mixed up if they think labour law is incorrect. Employment law refers to a subcategory of labour law. But that is not what this page is. Tmol42 got this absolutely correct - I have no idea why his contribution wasn't given attention.

You could also called it "industrial law" or "work law" or even "master and servant law". Some people do not like "labour law" because they think it has connotations of the Labour Party. But this is not true. Labour law is correct. It is the law concerning people's contribution of labour to an enterprise. The discussion took place on an erroneous footing, and that is why I have moved this page back. Wikidea 12:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I need to do this formally.

Requested move 2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– The first set of moves was very mistaken. Here's a few reasons:

1. It's called the International Labour Organization. This is very important.
2. The two leading UK textbooks are called "Labour law" - these are Deakin and Morris and Collins, Ewing and McColgan. Then there are a variety of other names. The name hasn't fallen into disuse at all.
3. Let's look at what the universities call the subject in the UK: Oxford, Cambridge, UCL, LSE, King's, Edinburgh... all "labour law".
4. Technically the law of "employment" is reserved for individual labour relations: between employer and employee. Collective labour law, involving trade unions as well, is not captured by this term. So technically, the student above, and practitioners, have simply got their vocabulary mixed up if they think labour law is incorrect. Employment law refers to a subcategory of labour law. But that is not what this page is. User:Tmol42 got this absolutely correct. His contribution should have been given attention.
5. There are countless examples of what is labour law, but not employment law: (1) a member of a trade union is unjustly expelled: no employment relationship there. Labour law, but not employment law. (2) a volunteer is discriminated against on grounds of disability: the UKSC thinks there's no employment. But it's labour law. (3) a trade union seeks to go on strike to achieve political objectives. It is not a strike about terms and conditions of employment. It's not lawful in the UK, it's not employment law, but it's labour law. (4) the EU negotiates a trade deal with South Korea which includes a social clause to protect labour standards, like International Labour Organization Convention 89. You've got no employee. You've got no employer. It's not employment law, but it's labour law.

Also, can I please ask that all the categories for the case pages be changed back as well. And may I please ask that in future more effort is taken to contact authors of so many pages before massive changes are made: not everybody checks watchlists all the time! Wikidea 13:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Wikidea 13:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the support. FYI, the American practice is to refer to employment law for "individual" matters, and "labor law" for either the whole subject, or for collective labour law: leading text is Cox, Bok, Gorman and Finkin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidea (talk • contribs) 16:29, 30 June 2013
Support Agree with Apteva's arguments, what he/she said sounds reasonable. --Surtalnar (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per the nominator and Apteva, I agree that labour is the more appropriate term in this case. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was somewhat of a lone voice arguing for retention of the status quo at the last Requested Move discussion (above). So just wish to restate my support for the reverting of the article title. To summarise what I said above, This article's content covers a much wider field of law not just that impacting on the employer and employee relationship, such as the laws directing the rights and conduct of trade unions and relationships between trade unions. The Government enacts legislation impacting on individuals rights independant of their employment, such as benefit, welfare, tax, immigration, health and safety etc. The translation into UK law of international directives and conventions also cover a much wider scope than 'employment law' best described in the context of 'labour law'.Tmol42 (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should also be noted that at the last renaming discussion the policy convention on advising regular contributors was not followed as according to Wikidea no notification was issued advising about the discussion so if the case it should be noted that this first discussion process was flawed .Tmol42 (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notification of move discussion[edit]

Just to say that neither move discussion was notified to me. If that was supposed to happen (and if a failure to do it makes a move discussion flawed) then both were. Francis Davey (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK there's no requirement on notifications for RMs. The Article Alerts system automatically updates projects who've added the banner to the article in question and subscribed to the system but otherwise it's down to editors to keep track, not expect to be informed. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions[edit]

Two of my recent edits have been instantly reverted, with the explanations: (i) WP:summary style & (ii) Arrivisto's replacements are factually mistaken. Happy to hear suggestions on talk page if you have them- but need to follow policy.

I responded to the first reversion "The intro is too long and is a daunting wall of text. Also, it isn't all introductory)" and then I went on to make some amendments that seemed appropriate in the light of earlier discussions on this page. That allegation that my "replacements are factually mistaken" perhaps needs to be justfied. Surely it is better to let a bona fide edit stand for a while for others to consider its merits? Instant reversion is appropriate for vandalism, but these reversions begin to smack of WP:OWN! Arrivisto (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To continue, I still feel that first massive couple of paragraphs are "a daunting wall of text", and that a shorter intro is appropriate. I think my edits were all sound. Should others feel that the three main subdivisions of the topic that I put in the intro (*the contract of employment, *health and safety matters; & *trade union and labour relations issues) were wrong or insufficient, why not amend them or add to them, rather than delete them? And since there has been discussion on merits of the terms "labour law v employment law" and " "British Law and English law", why not (as I did) put it in a simple paragraph on Terminology? And if a reversion explains: "Happy to hear suggestions on talk page if you have them", why not respond to them? And the line "need to follow policy" suggests that my edits were out of keeping with Wikipedia policy, which is just not so. Any WP introduction should be succinct and should invite the reader to go further; this article currently fails to comply. Arrivisto (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Arrivisto, so WP:Summary says that the introduction should summarise the whole article - but really, a "daunting wall of text"!? Have a look at other articles that are good: but maybe you see information that is superfluous or it could be shortened? If you have specific suggestions, by all means. I'm not sure what the value is of discussing the differences in the name of the page is - though perhaps it's a good suggestion for a footnote? You're not wrong that UK labour law includes the contract of employment, h&s and collective labour law, but h&s isn't really an equal division of the topic. Wikidea 11:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bad reference[edit]

The article says "The right to secure employment, either in one's current job or in a job that utilises a person's skills in the most socially productive way, is usually seen as crucial for the success of the economy and human development."[414] But the reference does not actually say that. At best, it says one study shows that creativity as measured by patents/citations increases with more stringent labor laws. It does not say anything about what is "usually seen as crucial" for the economy in general.

Unless there is significant objection, I'll remove this reference. Kitplane01 (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United Kingdom labour law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meaningless sentence in H&S section[edit]

In the "Health and Safety" section, the pseudo-sentence "Insurance companies may not their employee to recover costs unless there is fraud.[81]" has no evident meaning. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Kingdom_labour_law/Archive_01&oldid=1193695521"