The interpretation of protective employment statutes and contracts of employment

Abstract

This article identifies a tendency of UK judges to apply an exaggerated contractual test to certain types of protective employment legislation, eg 'place of work' and 'kind of work' in the definition of redundancy, 'continuity of service' and 'employee'. It points out where the judges themselves have corrected certain inappropriate interpretations but also shows that the tendency persists. The article goes on to suggest that the reason for the tendency is an unwillingness by certain judges to accept protective employment legislation as an autonomous layer of regulation. It also suggests a method to achieve a more consistent interpretation of existing protective legislation as well as the need for new legislation to resolve the difficulties in respect of certain statutory provisions.