Tuesday, May 7, 2013
David Doorey is a labour law professor at York University in Toronto who many of you know. His popular blog on labour and employment law, Law of Work Blog, has had a professional makeover.
You should check it out as a great source of issues and events in Canadian law and policy. Last year it received the honour of Best Law Blog in Canada.
Defintely worth a look.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Friend of the blog and comparative and international LEL expert, Susan Bisom-Rapp (Thomas Jefferson) has kindly provided the following guest post. It is an excellent analysis of this week's Supreme Court decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Peltroleum. In it, she explains the labor and employment law ramifications of this important decision:
The Irony of the Supreme Court’s Decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum
Susan Bisom-Rapp (Thomas Jefferson School of Law)
Although not a case involving workers’ rights, the April 17th decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum was long-awaited by those interested in whether transnational corporations (TNCs) can be sued in U.S. courts under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) for human rights violations perpetrated against foreign workers laboring abroad. Rather than answer the question initially directed to the Court – Does the ATS confer jurisdiction over corporations? – the Supreme Court addressed a different question: Whether and under what circumstances may U.S. courts recognize an ATS cause of action for violations occurring within another sovereign territory? In a fractured and somewhat muddy decision, the Court limited ATS cases, at least where the defendants are foreign corporations, the wrongdoing occurs outside the U.S., and the claims do not touch or concern the territory of the United States. Even so, the Court left open enough questions that on the day the decision issued, workers’ rights advocates confidently opined that there is still a subset of viable ATS cases that may be brought against TNCs.
Kiobel was brought by Nigerian nationals against Dutch, British, and Nigerian corporations, which the plaintiffs argued aided and abetted the Nigerian government in committing human rights abuses as the latter sought to suppress environmental protests related to corporate oil exploration. All nine justices agreed that the case should be dismissed but the four justices of the Court’s liberal wing (Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan) disagreed with the reasoning of the majority (Justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito). A liberal wing concurrence was consequently written. Complicating matters, Justices Kennedy and Alito each filed a separate concurrence, and Justice Thomas joined Justice Alito’s concurrence.
No matter how you slice it, the Supreme Court’s decision in Kiobel is a win for TNCs. The Kiobel case will not proceed, and the Court announced new limitations on ATS claims. Ironically, however, and despite the limitations imposed by the Kiobel majority, it is the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, which leaves the courthouse door open a bit and will likely be used by workers’ rights advocates in subsequent litigation. Before explaining why, some background on ATS claims on behalf of workers is necessary.
The ATS, legislation enacted in 1789 and signed into law by George Washington, confers federal jurisdiction over “any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” It was not until 1996, however, that suit was brought against a corporate defendant. That case involved the oil company Unocal, which was sued for allegedly aiding and abetting abuses by the Myanmar military, including the use of forced labor, committed in connection with the construction of a natural gas pipeline. Although that case settled, subsequent ATS cases brought on behalf of workers include suits against: Bridgestone-Firestone on behalf of children and adults who work on Firestone’s rubber plantation in Liberia; Chiquita by the families of pro-union workers murdered by Colombian paramilitaries; Coca-Cola for the murder and torture of Colombian union leaders; Nestle, Archer Daniels Midland, and Cargill relating to the trafficking of Malian children into Cote d’Ivoire for work on cocoa plantations; and mining company Drummond, regarding its subsidiary’s alleged involvement with the torture and murder of Colombian trade union leaders.
In 2007, that last case, Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., became the first ATS case against a corporation to reach trial. Although the jury ruled against the plaintiffs, many TNCs and their advocates viewed the case as making real what had until then been a theoretical threat of corporate ATS liability. The status of corporate ATS liability, however, is contested. There is a split in the circuits that the Supreme Court had a chance to resolve in Kiobel. Rather than do that directly, the Court addressed a different issue – the extra-territorial reach of the ATS in suits brought against any person, natural or juridical.
For the Kiobel majority, this is a simple case resolved by the presumption against extraterritorial application of a statute. That well-known presumption provides that where Congress has not plainly expressed its intent that legislation apply beyond U.S. borders, the statute does not apply extraterritorially. Since the spare text of the ATS does not address the reach of the grant of federal jurisdiction for tort claims brought by aliens, the presumption, by barring claims such as those in Kiobel, precludes U.S. courts from creating conflicts with other nations and interfering with foreign policy. That the tort claims mentioned in the ATS are those “committed in violation of the law of nations” does not, argued the majority, imply reach beyond our borders since violations of international law norms can occur on U.S. soil. Indeed, two embarrassing incidents involving foreign ambassadors to the U.S. occurred just prior to passage of the ATS. At the time, U.S. officials were concerned there might not be a sufficient forum for hearing those claims.
As for what it would take to displace the presumption, Chief Justice Roberts notes that all ATS claims must “touch and concern” U.S. territory with “sufficient force.” Somewhat tantalizing, he opines that “[c]orporations are often present in many countries, and it would reach too far to say that mere corporate presence suffices.” Picking up on all that the majority opinion leaves unanswered, Justice Kennedy’s one paragraph concurrence notes that “the Court is careful to leave open a number of significant questions regarding the reach and interpretation of the [ATS].”
Rather than embrace the presumption against extraterritorial application, the liberal wing’s concurrence is driven by the principles of foreign relations law from which it draws international jurisdictional norms to determine when it is appropriate to apply U.S. law outside of U.S. territory. To that end, Justice Breyer, who wrote the concurrence, relies on the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law. The liberal concurrence argues that the statute provides federal district courts with jurisdiction not only when the torts occur in the U.S. but also when “the defendant is an American national” or “the defendant’s conduct substantially and adversely affects an important American national interest.”
While providing some useful language for workers’ rights advocates, there are two reasons I believe the liberal concurrence may be less helpful to them than the majority opinion coupled with Justice Kennedy’s concurrence. First, there may be a tendency among American judges to shy away from foreign relations law and the Restatement Third when they might easily make use of a presumption rooted in domestic law, and, I might add, that presumption is embedded in a majority opinion. Strategically, it may make sense for workers’ rights advocates to craft arguments using language that is familiar to American judges.
Second, Justice Breyer's example of “an important American national interest” does not track the fact patterns of the ATS corporate cases very well. His example is ensuring our country does not become a safe harbor for modern day pirates – those who commit heinous violations of international norms elsewhere and then seek safety on our shores. In the corporate ATS cases, the actual commission of human rights violations is rarely performed by the TNC in question. Gross human rights abuses in those cases usually have a direct connection to a foreign government. The corporate liability, if it were to lie, is vicarious. In short, the ill-fit of Justice Breyer’s example may limit the utility of the liberal concurrence leading to the irony that the more conservative majority opinion may ultimately be of greater use to workers’ rights advocates. The Kiobel decision was a disappointment for workers’ rights advocates but it was not as bad a decision as it could have been. The battle over corporate ATS liability continues, at least for now.
Monday, April 8, 2013
Brown on Comparative Alternative Dispute Resolution for Individual Labor Disputes in Japan, China and the United States: Lessons from Asia?
Ron Brown (Hawaii) has recently published in the St. John's Law Review (86 St. John's L. Rev. 843) his new article: Comparative Alternative Dispute Resolution for Individual Labor Disputes in Japan, China and the United States: Lessons from Asia?
Here is the abstract:
Resolving individual labor rights disputes in East Asia and the United States in recent years has taken on new significance and prominence for both domestic and multinational corporations. New legal approaches have been put into place in Japan, China, and the United States that deal with individual rights under either individual and/or collective contract or statutory labor disputes. The United States Supreme Court has approved the use of private arbitration under individual and collective contracts to resolve both contractual and statutory labor disputes. How these approaches compare may provide thought of reform for the U.S., no matter how unlikely.
This area of the law is, needless to say, developing at lightening speed. Having myself learned about how arbitration works in Japan during my travels there, I know that Ron's piece will shed much needed light on how other parts of the world rely on ADR to resolve their legal disputes.
Friday, April 5, 2013
Matthew Finkin et al. have just published Multinational Human Resource Management And The Law: Common Workplace Problems in Different Legal Environments (Edward Elgar 2013). Here's the publisher's description:
Multinational firms have to navigate employment laws in an array of countries, while individual nations have to deal with multinational firms. The educational challenge for managers, lawyers, and policy makers is taken up in this textbook by legal experts from Australia, Brazil, Germany, Japan and the United States, with each expert addressing the twenty commonly confronted human resource problems in detail. The book includes primary sources, comments, and discussion questions, providing both legal insight and an appreciation for the role of cultural assumptions in law.
Regulating the Employment Relationship in Europe: A guide to Recommendation No. 198 (April 2, 2013).
Over the recent years, there have been increasing developments at the European level regarding the employment relationship in legislation, case law, collective agreements and soft law. In this context, the ILO, and in particular the then Industrial and Employment Relations Department (DIALOGUE) undertook a strategic partnership with the European Labour Law Network (ELLN), a network of independent legal experts from all European Union Member States and European Economic Area countries, to produce an updated version of the 2007 annotated Guide with a specific focus on European countries.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Susan Bisom-Rapp (Thomas Jefferson) and Malcolm Sargeant (Middlesex U. Business School, UK) have just posted on SSRN page proofs for their article, Diverging Doctrine, Converging Outcomes: Evaluating Age Discrimination Law in the United Kingdom and the United States, which appears in the Loyola University Chicago Law Journal. Susan just returned from a week in London, where she and Malcolm scoped out their newest project, centered on gender discrimination along the course of life, how it accumulates over time and disadvantages women not only as workers but as retirees. Here's the abstract for the Loyola Chicago article:
This article compares age discrimination law and practice in the United Kingdom (UK) and United States (US) to discern convergences and divergences in legal doctrine, the law's normative underpinnings, and societal outcomes. Each country at first blush appears to pursue age discrimination protection using a distinct model. Age bias law in Britain adheres to what might be termed the European approach. That approach, grounded in the EU's Framework Directive on Equal Treatment in Employment and Occupation, is relatively recent in Britain, dating to October 2006. One distinguishing characteristic of UK law is the possibility of employer-justified compulsory retirement.
In contrast to the UK, the legal prohibition of age discrimination in the US is over four decades old, embodied in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). The American approach prohibits compulsory retirement programs in order to combat negative, age-based stereotypes about when and how older workers should exit the labor market. Over time, however, US Supreme Court decisions have greatly weakened the ADEA's protections, making it difficult for plaintiffs to make out a prima facie case of age discrimination, making it easier for employers to defend against suit, and complicating the government's enforcement efforts. Also, aggressive corporate downsizing, very laxly regulated in the US, increasingly affects older workers, leaving them without employment at a point in their lives when finding replacement work is most difficult or for some impossible.
Despite what may appear as great doctrinal contrasts, however, the age discrimination laws of the UK and the US converge in many respects. Both systems view age stereotyping as an ill to be cured. Both countries ultimately provide for inferior legal protections against age discrimination as compared to other forms of prohibited workplace bias. Finally, both approaches to age discrimination render workers vulnerable in their later working years even though each nation's laws arguably arrive there by a different route.
This article argues that the deficiencies plaguing both systems are traceable to the incursion of a distinct economic imperative, applicable only to older workers, on what should be a civil or human rights approach to their treatment. Putting age on an even footing with other forms of bias – for example, race and sex – is necessary if the law is to eliminate the harm it seeks to redress.
Looks great, and I can't wait to see the follow-up piece, too.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
We posted here an announcement of the Eleventh Conference in commemoration of Prof. Marco Biagi. The Conference, organized by the Marco Biagi Foundation, took place in Modena (Italy) on 18 and 19 March 2013. Susan Bisom-Rapp (Thomas Jefferson) attended and presented, and I asked her to prepare a short description of the Conference for us, both to describe the Conference itself and also to talk about why the Conference might be of interest to American LEL professors. Here's her report:
Every year since 2003, the Marco Biagi Foundation has hosted an international conference in Modena, Italy devoted to international and comparative employment and labor relations. This year’s conference, The Transnational Dimension of Labor Relations: A New Order in the Making?, brought together scholars from Europe, Africa, and the Americas, who analyzed the challenges of regulating work, promoting labor standards, and addressing increasing economic inequality in the wake of the global economic crisis. Particular attention was given to new forms of transnational collective bargaining, emerging hard and soft law techniques to influence the conduct of transnational corporations, the difficulty of establishing fair conditions of work for migrants, and the lack of a clear hierarchy of law-making authority at the international level. Participants addressed these issues from a number of disciplines including law, industrial relations, economics, and human resource management.
Part of the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy, the Marco Biagi Foundation is also home to the International Doctoral Research School in Labour Relations, which promotes PhD work that is comparative and interdisciplinary. To advance the work of its own students, and establish links with PhD and post-doctoral students around the world, the Foundation launched its Young Scholars’ Workshop last year. This year, we heard and commented on papers from PhD students from Norway, Italy, Spain, South Africa, Austria, Estonia, and Hungary. The chance to provide feedback from an outsider’s perspective – that of an American law professor – was fun for me and, I hope, helpful for them. For me, this session has become a highlight of the annual conference.
Mike Zimmer (Loyola University Chicago) and I were first introduced to the Foundation’s annual conference in 2007 by our co-author Roger Blanpain (Universities of Leuven and Tilburg, Belgium and the Netherlands). Roger, a prolific scholar in the field of comparative labor and employment law, attends most years, as do some of the most influential scholars in that field, including Manfred Weiss (J.W. Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany), Csilla Kollonay-Lehoczy (Central European University, Budapest, Hungary), Jacques Rojot, (University of Paris II – Panthéon Assas, France), Alan Neal (University of Warwick, U.K.), and Janice Bellace (The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania). The opportunity for conversations and exchange with these scholars and others has kept me coming back to Modena annually since then. It has also led to my fruitful collaboration with Malcolm Sargeant (Middlesex University Business School, London, U.K.), with whom I have written several articles on comparative age discrimination law. Serving on the Foundation’s international council has helped me understand the challenges facing higher education in Europe. I recommend this kind of involvement to American legal scholars interested in a fresh perspective on the challenges and possible solutions to the problems we confront at home. I only worry that in this age of austerity and shrinking travel budgets, it will become increasingly difficult for those in the American legal academy to participate in conferences outside our borders. Finding ways to do it may take some creative planning, but, at least in my experience, it will be well worth the effort.
Many thanks, Susan!
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
César F. Rosado Marzán (Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago - Kent College of Law) has posted on SSRN his forthcoming piece in the UC Irvine Law Review entitled: Organizing Unions in the U.S. with International Framework Agreements: An Exploratory Study.
Here is the abstract:
Union density continues to decline, while income inequality continues to climb. But while union density falls we have experienced the counterintuitive rise in international framework agreements (“IFAs”), or agreements signed by global union federations (“global unions”) and multinational corporations. IFAs can be construed to contain employer pledges to not put obstacles on workers who want to organize. Can a global employer’s pledge to not oppose workers’ organization facilitate their unionization? In an exploratory fashion, I interviewed union and multi-national firms that signed IFAs to better comprehend how these novel agreements can aid the organization of workers. The results of this exploratory study show that the organizational inroads vary from nonexistent to very modest, even with the employers’ pledges not to oppose unionization. Economic and political obstacles seem to significantly hinder union organization even when the employers sign IFAs. The article concludes that even though the organizational results of the cases were not entirely positive, the cases suggest that unions that think creatively and experiment with the IFAs beyond mere neutrality pacts could counter the economic and political roadblocks to unionization. Therefore, the article provides hypotheses for further research to clarify how IFAs can be more effective organizing tools and for unions to experiment with the global agreements.
I really like how Cesar went to the proverbial horse's mouth to interview those involved in such agreements in Germany and other countries (during hsi research leave in Europe last year). I think his insights will be very helpful going forward in deciding whether IFAs can play a meaningful in the post-Wagner Model world we now find ourselves in.
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal
Volume 34, Number 2 - Winter 2013
Public Sector Collective Bargaining and the Distortion of Democracy: Do Public Sector Unions Have "Too Much" Power?
- Jeffrey H. Keefe, A Reconsideration and Empirical Evaluation of Wellington's and Winter's, "The Unions and the Cities".
- Martin H. Malin, Does Public Employee Collective Bargaining Distort Democracy? A Perspective from the United States
- Kazutoshi Koshiro, Does Public Sector Collective Bargaining Distort Democracy in Japan?
- Ryuichi Yamakawa, Japan's Collective Labor Relations Law in the Public Sector: Constitutional Conflict Between Union Rights and Democracy
- Véronique Chanut and Jacques Rojot, Does Public Sector Collective Bargaining Distort Democracy - The Case for France
- Mark Thompson and Sara Slinn, Public Sector Industrial Relations in Canada: Does It Threaten or Sustain Democracy?
- Berndt Keller, The Public Sector in the United States and Germany: Comparative Aspects in an Employment Relations Perspective
- Jens M. Schubert, Public Sector Collective Bargaining and the Distortion of Democracy: Do Public Sector Unions Have "Too Much" Power? - The German Perspective
- Theodore N. Tsekos, Structural, Functional, and Cultural Aspects of the Greek Public Administration and Their Effects on Public Employees' Collective Action
- Dimitrios Kremalis, Public Sector Collective Bargaining and the Distortion of Democracy: Do Public Sector Unions Have "Too Much" Power?
- Lorenzo Bordogna, Employment Relations and Union Action in the Italian Public Services - Is There a Case of Distortion of Democracy?
- Adriana Topo, Public Sector Collective Bargaining and the Distortion of Democracy: The Italian Case
- Shireen Ally, From Servants to Workers: South African Domestic Workers and the Democratic State, reviewed by Kelly I. Pike.
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Bernd Waas (Goethe U., Frankfurt) writes to tell us that the European Labour Law Network (ELLN) recently modified its website and joined facebook as well as twitter. Colleagues who are interested in receiving up to date information about legal developments both at the EU-level and the national level are invited to use the links in this post.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
From Michele Tiraboschi, ADAPT Scientific Coordinator:
ADAPT is pleased to announce that it will start the selection procedures for 3-to-6 month internships in Italy in the areas of labour law, industrial relations and HRM, which will be hosted by ADAPT or its partners.
If selected, interns will be provided full accommodation in a cosy apartment in the Upper Town of Bergamo (Italy) plus an allowance amounting to 400 Euros.
ADAPT is a non-profit organization set up by Marco Biagi in 2000 with the aim of promoting research in the field of Industrial and Labour Relations from a comparative and an international perspective. Our purpose is to encourage and implement a new approach to academic research, by establishing long-term relationships with other universities and advanced studies institutes, and promoting academic and scientific exchange programs with enterprises, institutions, foundations and associations.
Those interested in joining the ADAPT community through an internship might send their CV and a cover letter to email@example.com. A Brochure for ADAPT can be found here and the Brochure for International Doctoral School in Human Capital and Labour Relations can be found here.
Zimmer and Bisom-Rapp on The Role of Canadian and American Scholarship in U.S. Labor Law Reform Debates
Mike Zimmer (Loyola Chicago) and Susan Bisom-Rapp (Thomas Jefferson) have just posted on SSRN page proofs for their article, North American Border Wars: The Role of Canadian and American Scholarship in U.S. Labor Law Reform Debates (Hofstra Lab. & Emp. L.J., vol. 30, No. 1, 2012-13).
Susan reports that the article will also shortly appear in Italian as a book chapter, S. Bisom-Rapp & M. Zimmer, La Guerra di Confine Nordamericana: il Ruolo della Ricerca Canadese e Americana nel Dibattito sulla Riforma del Diritto del Lavoro Statunitense, in REGOLE, POLITICHE E METODO: L’EREDITÀ DI MARCO BIAGI NELLE RELAZIONI DI LAVORO DI OGGI (F. Basenghi, L.E. Golzio (a cura di), con la collaborazione di A. Russo, O. Rymkevich, I. Senatori, C. Serra, Giappichelli, Torino, 2013). Susan and Mike presented their paper March 19, 2012 at the Tenth Annual Marco Biagi Conference at the University of Modena, Italy.
Here is the abstract:
The economies of Canada and the United States and the organization of their societies are deeply interrelated but significant differences exist. This article briefly traces the interaction between the two countries in the development of labor relations laws with a particular emphasis on the impact of scholarly work on U.S. labor law reform debates in the last two decades. Instructive for that purpose is the work of Professor Paul Weiler, a prominent figure in labor law policy discussions in both countries. A significant architect of labor law in Canada, Professor Weiler came to Harvard Law School in 1978 and brought his experience and insights with him, rapidly becoming one of the foremost labor law scholars in the United States. His influence in the 1990s, and hence the influence of Canadian ideas, on the ultimately unsuccessful labor law reform proposals of President Clinton’s Dunlop Commission is widely recognized.
Professor Weiler’s proposals were once again the basis for scholarly and policy debate during the Obama Administration. This time, however, Canadian ideas and experience prompted a scholarly border skirmish. Recently, when new legislation – the Employee Free Choice Act – was proposed to Congress to implement a number of reforms of the National Labor Relations Act based on the Canadian experience, several U.S. academics argued that the actual Canadian experience where these reforms were in place resulted in higher unemployment and slower economic growth. Canadian labor scholars, fearing the corrosive effects of such critiques on their own labor relations regime, responded with rejoinders challenging the work of the American scholars. Clearly, and notwithstanding American provincialism, Canadian-influenced labor law scholarship has played a central role in U.S. policy debates, creating a favorable intellectual environment for labor law convergence. Yet the opponents of U.S. labor law reform also deploy scholarship aimed at the Canadian experience in order reinforce the divergent paths of the two systems, as do Canadian scholars acting defensively to forestall greater convergence of the Canadian regime to the U.S. model.
Check it out! Looks very interesting.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Tiraboschi on Younger Workers in Recessionary Times, ADAPT, and E-Journal of International and Comparative Labour Studies
In cooperation with Pietro Manzella, I am delighted to start a series of international and comparative labor law posts emanating from ADAPT, a non-profit labor and employment studies organization in Italy, and its E-Journal of International and Comparative Labor Studies.
First, today's featured paper from the E-Journal of International and Comparative Labor Studies is by Professor Michele Tiraboschi entitled: Young Workers in Recessionary Times: A Caveat (to continental Europe) to Reconstruct its Labour Law?
Here is the abstract:
The current debate taking place in continental Europe on the need to reform labour law to reduce the duality between labour market insiders and outsiders, thus giving new employment opportunities to young people seems to be, at its best, a consequence of the crisis, or at its worst, an excuse. The considerable emphasis placed on the power of legislation to reduce youth unemployment prevents real labour market problems from being clearly identified, thus reducing the scope to adopt more effective measures. Action is certainly required to help young people during the current crisis, yet interventions should not be exclusively directed towards increased flexibility and deregulation. This paper questions the “thaumaturgic power” wrongly attributed to legislative interventions and put forward a more holistic approach to solve the problem of youth employment, by focusing on the education systems, school-to-work transition and industrial relations. As a comparative analysis demonstrates, in order to effectively tackle the issue of youth employment, it is not enough to reform labour law. High quality education systems, apprenticeship schemes, efficient placement and employment services, cooperative industrial relations and flexible wage determination mechanisms are the key to success when it comes to youth employment, not only in times of recession.
Clearly a high relevant and interesting labor law article for all who care about youth employment opportunities throughout the globe.
As far as the E-Journal of International and Comparative Labour Studies, it is an open-access review promoted by ADAPT University Press and run by Malcolm Sargeant and Michele Tiraboschi. It is generally concerned with issues in employment relations, human resource management, health and safety, psychology, sociology, labour economics, politics, labour law and history. More info at firstname.lastname@example.org or www.adapt.it.
ADAPT is a non-profit organisation founded in 2000 by Professor Marco Biagi with the aim of promoting studies and research in the field of labour law and industrial relations from an international and comparative perspective. Their purpose is to encourage and implement a new approach to academic research, by establishing long-term relationships with other universities and advanced studies institutes, and promoting academic and scientific exchange programs with enterprises, institutions, foundations and associations. More info is availabe at www.adapt.it.
We hope you enjoy the comning articles from this new collaboration between Workplace Prof Blog, ADAPT, and the E-Journal of International and Comparative Labour Studies.
Friday, December 7, 2012
Paul F. Clark, head of the Department of Labor Studies and Employment Relations at Penn State University, brings to our attention, that the Project for Global Workers’ Rights has been elevated to full research center status as of December 1, 2012.
Professor Mark Anner will serve as the founding Director of the Center for
Global Workers’ Rights (CGWR) and Professor Jill Jensen will serve as the Center’s Assistant Director.
From the press release:
The Center supports a rigorous academic research agenda on sweatshops, labor standards, and precarious work, and partners with both activists and practitioners in support of workers' rights, collective representation, social activism, and on-going efforts to hold accountable those who permit poor and dangerous work conditions, and violations of workers’ organizing rights. It also sponsors a Post-Doctoral Scholar each year.
You can find more information on the Center here.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
It is at Canada's newest law school at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, B.C. David tells me that it is in a beautiful part of Canada, with wine vineyards and ski mountains, a couple of hours east of Vancouver.
Here is a link to the job posting on David's blog.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Friends of the blog Angela Onwuachi-Willig (Iowa) and Rebecca Lee (Thomas Jefferson) write about the joint newsletter for the AALS sections on Employment Discrimination and Labor and Employment Law. Here is their call for submissions:
We are putting together a joint annual newsletter for the AALS Section on Employment Discrimination and the Section on Labor Relations and Employment Law, and we need your help as readers and section members. Please forward this message to any and all people you know who teach or write in the Employment Discrimination, Labor Law, and Employment Law fields.
First, if you have news of any faculty visits, lateral moves, entry-level hires, or promotions and tenure not included here (http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/laborprof_blog/2012/04/workplace-prof-moves-for-2012-2013.html), please e-mail that news to Angela Onwuachi-Willig at email@example.com.
Second, please e-mail Angela Onwuachi-Willig at firstname.lastname@example.org with any information about conference announcements and calls for papers, employment or fellowship opportunities, honors and awards, and reports on recent conferences or other events of interest to the two Sections' members.
Third, we want to include a list of relevant employment or labor law-related publications published in 2012; please hold your forthcoming 2013 publications for next year's newsletter. These publications can be books, articles, and chapters. Please also send a list of your published 2012 articles to Angela Onwuachi-Willig at email@example.com.
Fourth and finally, we want to solicit anyone who would be interested in writing a brief description of a recent "big" labor and employment case or significant new labor or employment legislation. Your subject could be a Supreme Court decision (but it does not have to be), a significant circuit court decision (or emerging circuit split), a state supreme court decision, or an innovative and potentially influential new federal, state, or local law. The description should be fairly short (under 2 pages). If you're looking for an easy way to get your name out there or want a quick outlet for your ruminations about a case or new law, this could be a good opportunity. Just let us know what you are interested in writing on. Please send submissions to Rebecca Lee at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Please send all submissions by November 18, 2012.
November 5, 2012 in Commentary, Conferences & Colloquia, Employment Common Law, Employment Discrimination, Faculty Moves, Faculty News, International & Comparative L.E.L., Labor and Employment News, Labor Law, Pension and Benefits, Public Employment Law, Religion, Scholarship, Teaching | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Volume 34, Number 1 Fall 2012
- Einat Albin, Introduction: Precarious Work and Human Rights, p. 1.
- Nicola Kountouris, The Legal Determinants of Precariousness in Personal Work Relations: A European Perspective, p. 21.
- Bernd Waas, A Quid Pro Quo in Temporary Agency Work: Abolishing Restrictions and Establishing Equal Treatment-Lessons to Be Learned from European and German Labor Law?, p. 47.
- Guy Davidov, The Principle of Proportionality in Labor Law and Its Impact on Precarious Workers, p. 63.
- Kamala Sankaran, The Human Right to Livelihood: Recognizing the Right to be Human, p. 81.
- Judy Fudge, Precarious Migrant Status and Precarious Employment: The Paradox of International Rights for Migrant Workers, p. 95.
- Virginia Mantouvalou, Human Rights for Precarious Workers: The Legislative Precariousness of Domestic Labor, p. 133.
- Deirdre McCann, New Frontiers of Regulation: Domestic Work, Working Conditions, and the Holistic Assessment of Nonstandard Work Norms, p. 167.
- Einat Albin, Human Rights and the Multiple Dimensions of Precarious Work, p. 193.
- Guy Mundlak, Human Rights and Labor Rights: Why Don't the Two Tracks Meet?, p. 217.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
From our friends at the American University Labor and Employment Law Forum comes this insightful analysis on why the Alberta Labor Relations Board declined to take jurisdiction over the NHL Lockout dispute.
Here's a taste of the blog post:
After a hearing on September 21, 2012, the [Alberta Labor Relations] Board determined that because the NHL and the NHLPA have “never established definitively which jurisdiction’s labour laws govern their relationship,” thus “even if the Board has jurisdiction to declare the lockout unlawful, it should not exercise its discretion to do so [in the heat of a strike or lockout.]” And grounding its decision in a public policy argument, refused to make any kind of decision on the issue and dismissed the NHLPA’s application in its entirety.
Alberta's decision is consisent with the decision by the Quebec Labor Relations Board to not intervene in the onoing labor dispute between the NHL and its players (though the Quebec Board indicated that it still might have more to say on the matter and did not dismiss the case). In any event, a read of the whole linked-to blog post is well worth the time. As a die-hard Flyers fan, and like my friends at American, I am also missing the normal beginning of the hockey season today.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
I am pleased to attach the Marco Biagi Foundation’s Call for Papers for its Young Scholars Workshop, which will be held during the afternoon of March 19, 2013 at the University of Modena in Modena, Italy. In addition to PhD candidates and post-docs, JSD students are welcome. The deadline for the submission of abstracts is November 3, 2012. Presenters of papers will receive free admission to the Eleventh International Conference in Commemoration of Professor Marco Biagi, hotel accommodations from March 18-20 (two nights), and breakfast and other meals on March 18 -19.
Abstracts, papers and any questions about submissions should be sent to: email@example.com
The 2012 workshop, featuring 10 papers presented by doctoral and post-doctoral students from two continents, and two poster sessions, was an exciting and successful event. I was honored to participate in the event last year as an organizer and commentator, and found the workshop to be a highlight of the International Conference. Please spread the word to potential participants.
This looks like an incredible opportunity. A few more details are in this call for papers: Download Call YSW
Monday, September 24, 2012
David Doorey (York Univ. (Canada)) has just posted on SSRN an updated version of his paper entitled: The Charter and the Law of Work: A Beginner's Guide.
Here's the abstract:
This essay explains how the Supreme Court of Canada has interpreted and applied the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the law of work. It is intended as an introduction to this complex legal field for an audience unfamiliar with the Charter. Beginning with an overview of the Charter review process, the paper then examines the Court’s application to work law of Section 2(d) freedom of association, Section 2(b) freedom of expression, and Section 15 equality rights. The paper is an updated version describing the law as of summer 2012.
The paper provides a great introductory overview of the development and current state of Canadian Charter law relating to work and employment, including freedom of association, freedom of expression, and right to equality. David wrote it for an audience of new law students or non-law students being introduced to the Charter in the law of work, but it might also be a useful tool for scholars from the U.S. and abroad who are interested in a quick snapshot look at recent developments under the Canadian Charter.
As an honorary Canuck (based on my many visits and trips to Canada), I wholly endorse the idea of American labor and employment lawyers becoming more familiar with the ideas that animate Canadian workplace law!