PurposeFor longer than most people would think, over 40 years, organisational psychologists have been defining and characterising the employment relationship in terms of the psychological contract. Across the same period, judges have through their decisions in legal cases been setting down implied terms that apply to all contracts of employment. Accompanying this development certain commentators, drawn from both academic and practitioner backgrounds have been analysing these terms in considerable detail. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the nature and importance of the concept of the psychological contract and consider its application in the context of the most important implied terms in the contract of employment.Design/methodology/approachThis article was written from a review of the secondary sources of the two disciplines covered. It was only possible to give an overview of the key areas and their influence and given that these two areas had not been analysed together before there was little material available to refer to. The underlying question is how complimentary and compatible are these concepts? This is fully considered through analysis of the effect of their combination in explaining or de‐limiting the employment relationship and the contract of employment.FindingsIt is contended that as both these contracts have in some respects a common purpose it seems an opportune time to reflect on their role and their potential, if any, for combined utilisation in the workplace.Originality/valueIt is contended that this research is important as it analyses the nature and impact of two different contractual models that characterise and regulate the employment relationship. These models are drawn from two separate disciplines and as far as this commentator is aware this is the first time this specific form of analysis has been undertaken.
Purpose Banter has been defined in the Oxford Dictionary as “the playful and friendly exchange of playful remarks” [www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/banter]. This suggests that it is a form of dialogue or conversation that is welcome, non-threatening and appreciated by the recipient. However, this is often not the case, and the purpose of this paper is to consider the legal rules dealing with banter where it is threatening, unwanted or oppressive to the recipient. Where there is a discriminatory aspect to the banter, the protection provided under equality law will be considered. Banter can be directed at workers with different characteristics (e.g. disability, age, religion, sex, race or sexual orientation), and this paper will consider discriminatory banter whatever the basis. The different types of dialogues falling under the term banter will be analysed and the extent to which legal protection is in place to deal with it will be considered. The statutory legal rules dealing with harassment and bullying in the UK are the most relevant to controlling workplace banter and accordingly will be given primary consideration. Finally, recommendations will be made for improving both management practice and the law in this area. Design/methodology/approach The methodology used is a thorough review of secondary sources in the UK including relevant statutes and legal cases and research undertaken in this area. Findings There is a need for legislative change to protect victims of unwanted workplace banter. Research limitations/implications Legal and managerial solutions to a complex problem. Practical implications Very few sources of primary research. Originality/value Highly original.
Equal pay legislation has been in existence for over forty years in the UK
The premise of this paper is that those persons who excessively overwork can die as a result, through stress-related illness or suicide. This paper undertakes a comparative analysis of the legal treatment of stress-related illness at work and, in particular, death by overwork (known as Karoshi in Japan). The legal rules governing this aspect of health and safety in the US and the UK will be considered primarily, because these are countries where this problem has not been properly recognized and, accordingly, legislators and the judiciary in both the US and the UK have largely failed to address it. Despite this, it is a fact that organizations in these countries have the worst record for requiring their workforce to work excessively and/or for long hours. Research has shown that this leads to stress-related illness and sometimes death by overwork in organizations. The failure to take legal action to deal with this problem in the US and the UK is all the more surprising and disappointing because these countries (along with Japan where it is legally recognized) have the richest economies in the world. It is now accepted that a working pattern and culture of long hours and excessive working adversely affect workers by putting at risk their physical and/or mental health, and it is important to consider how workers in this position are dealt with by employers and within the legal framework of both jurisdictions.
An organisation will impose appearance codes on their employees that are designed to ensure that they conform to the prevailing organisational culture and present the correct image of the company to external agents. These codes can adversely affect members of a particular sex, sexual orientation or ethnic group, but often there is no legal remedy for them. This article will involve a critical analyse of the extent of the legal protection available for employees that are adversely affected by employers' appearance standards in the United Kingdom and the United States.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations –citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.