Introduction
Legislative regulation of the multiple areas of human life aims to establish particular rules and limitations necessary to ensure that the rights of citizens are preserved. In particular, employment laws are a set of legislative statutes that regulate the relationships between employers and employees in the workplace setting and beyond to protect both sides’ rights. Various social and political processes affect changes in employment legal regulations, justifying the introduction of new concepts, ideas, restrictions, or obligations. In the United Kingdom (UK), the area of employment law is a fast-changing development-oriented field of legislation. Since 1970, the employment law of the UK has significantly changed due to the introduction of multiple statutes shaping human resource management systems and employee-employer relationships. Despite the insignificant negative impacts on some statutes’ organizational functions, the employment law changes have improved human resource practices and employee relations in general. The legislature has promoted professionalism of human resource management, making it more organized and regulated, ensuring employee retention, and making human resource practices more legally oriented.
Workplace Health and Safety Legislation
One of the pivotal areas of employment law is the statutes devoted to employee health and safety in the workplace. Indeed, the Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974 was introduced to protect employees “from getting hurt or ill through work” by imposing criminal and civil responsibility on the employer (Health and Safety Executive, n. d., para. 2). This statute was enacted because of the lack of proper legal articulation of the requirements related to the safety of individuals at work. According to Bratton et al. (2021), its introduction was relevant and motivated by the necessity to outline exact legal requirements for workplace safety conditions to preserve human health. Overall, it designed a hierarchal responsibility framework for ensuring safety in the workplace.
The introduction of the Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974 changed the human resource management approach. It requires organizations to implement health and safety policies for the involved stakeholders to abide by to comply with the law. Moreover, the Act initiated proactive measures for human resource procedures aimed at safety training of employees and issuing regulations in cases of injury or harm (Almond & Esbester, 2018). The positive effects of this legislation for human resource departments are the clarity of guidance and provision of training for safety assurance in the workplace, which facilitates the performance of organizations and their corporate responsibility in general. As for the negative impact, the law requires more procedural measures aimed at regulating grievances, paperwork, and costs directed at ensuring health and safety.
Employment Protection
The employment law development in the UK during the past five decades has been characterized by the introduction of several statutes aimed at employment protection. Indeed, the Employment Protection Act 1975 (1975) was presented to protect employees from unlawful resignation and “to provide for the establishment and operation of a Maternity Pay Fund” (para. 1). In addition to this legislation, the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 1981 was introduced to add a provision to the Employment Protection Act regarding protecting employees in the case of their employers’ transferring to a different location. Stone et al. (2020) note that these Acts were introduced because employees lacked legally relevant protections related to securing their jobs under such circumstances as giving birth, company relocation, or others. The Acts benefit human resource management by providing clarity for regulating maternity leave. However, according to Ferdosi (2021), the adverse impact of the provisions on human resources is the cost-related losses for regulating the addressed cases. In other words, the procedures that legally addressed the employees’ concerns when obtaining maternity leaves or facing a company transfer required additional time and resources.
Another pivotal aspect of contemporary employment regulation is the protection of data. Firstly, the Data Protection Act of 1998 was introduced to impose legal boundaries as per the disclosure of employees’ personal data. Secondly, the General Data Protection Regulation of 2018 was introduced to replace the Data Protection Act of 1998 and allowed for establishing control of employees over their personal information shared with the employer (Veale et al., 2018). Launching these acts was necessary due to the need to address risks of private data disclosure and use for unlawful purposes. Its impact on human resource management implied increased responsibility to protect data and use proper practices to allow employees to control their data. On the negative side, this act imposed a risk to human resource performance legitimacy in the light of privacy breaches and cyber-attacks threats (Veale et al., 2018). The benefits of these acts for the human resource department are the improvement of data processing and protection solutions which lead to a higher level of professionalism and organizational involvement in the human resource department.
Discrimination in the Workplace
The UK employment law has advanced in terms of addressing discrimination and protecting diverse populations of employees from bias. Within this segment of statutes, the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975 made discrimination on the ground of sex or marital status in the workplace or educational settings unlawful (para. 1). This Act was introduced due to the growing social concerns about discriminatory behavior against men and women in the workplace. It was revised in consecutive years and further elaborated in the more contemporary Acts addressed further in this paper. The work of human resource management departments in organizations across the UK changed under the provision of this legislation due to the emphasis on anti-discriminatory measures.
One of the negative aspects of the Act’s influence on human resources is the rising level of complaints regarding sex discrimination due to the visibility of such cases in the light of the new law provision. At the same, the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975 and its later updates had a positive effect on human resource management. According to Adams et al. (2019), they promoted workplace culture improvement and building value in employees through their protection from discrimination. Thus, the Sex Discrimination Act has shaped the focus of attention on proper policies for workplace equality.
Similarly, another type of discrimination was separately addressed by the employment law. Indeed, the Disability Discrimination Act of 1995 was introduced to protect people with disabilities from biased attitudes in recruitment and employment (para. 1). The Act was motivated by the rising social concern about equity and equal representation concerning people with disabilities and the lack of a straightforward statute addressing the unlawful status of discrimination against such individuals. Similar to other non-discrimination acts, the Disability Discrimination Act of 1995 made human resource management responsible for executing unbiased and non-discriminatory employment procedures concerning people with disabilities. On the negative side, however, this Act increased multiple ethical and operational concerns due to accommodating people with disabilities in the workplace (Murphy, 163). Nonetheless, the positive characteristic of the legislation is that it expanded the pool of talent for recruitment and allowed for solidifying lawful practices in human resource management.
In addition, the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 were introduced to address the discrimination against sexual minority groups. In particular, this legislation made discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation unlawful. The relevance and necessity of such an act were validated by the human rights considerations concerning the freedoms of the LGBTQ+ community (Lee, 2019). Similarly, the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations of 2003 made it unlawful to discriminate against people based on their religious affiliation. Furthermore, the labeling of discrimination based on age was introduced within the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations of 2006. Thus, the legislative documents aimed at combatting discrimination due to age, religion, or sexual orientation shaped human resource practices in a manner of transitioning organizations toward diversity and inclusion. Stewart and Brown (2019) assert that the complexity of conducting measures for overseeing the instances of discrimination and preventing them complicated the work of human resource departments. However, these acts equipped human resource professionals with legally-based guidelines on preserving human rights in the workplace.
Furthermore, one of the recent introductions to the employment law has addressed the discrimination issues in the workplace on a general scale. Indeed, the Equality Act of 2010 “makes discrimination in the workplace towards protected groups unlawful” (Lane & Ingleby, 2018, p. 531). Armstrong and Taylor (2020) affirm that the introduction of this Act was necessary due to the importance of consolidating all the grounds on which discrimination is forbidden under the law. With the articulation of all the aspects addressed separately by other acts, the Equality Act emphasizes the implementation of employment practices for the timely recognition and prevention of the outlined types of discrimination against vulnerable populations. According to Doellgast et al. (2018), the process of recruitment and employee management has become more legally bound due to the necessity of facilitating the opportunities for all population groups at risk of discrimination. On the other hand, the upgrading of the human resource procedures in accordance with the Equality Act 2010 allowed for setting a higher standard rank for organizations.
Family and Parenting Issues
Within the scope of the employment law in the UK, the issues of family duties and parenting has been frequently addressed. The Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations of 1999 and the Paternity and Adoption Leave Regulations of 2002 were introduced to oversee the provision of paid time off for pregnant employees around the time of giving birth or adoption (The Chartered Institute of Personnel Development [CIPD], 2022). Pregnant women were awarded the right to preserve their position for 52 weeks with payment to establish support during the time of caring about the newly born child (CIPD, 2022). The necessity to articulate such provisions was dictated by the lack of clear and transparent regulation in the then-contemporary employment law. Squire Patton Boggs (2018) notes that with the introduction of these regulations, the human resource management’s tackling of the maternity leave concerns became more structured and legally guided. Indeed, while the allocation of costs for maternal leave and adoption leave payments complicated organizational performance, the human resource practices became more human rights-directed.
Similarly, in the later years, some more legislative documents have been passed to address employee issues related to family duties and maternal or paternal leave. Indeed, the Additional Paternity Leave Regulations of 2010 established a set of guidelines for fathers’ leave due to the birth of a child (CIPD, 2022). The justifiable reason for its introduction was the lack of legal articulation of the eligibility requirements and the time off and payment particularities related to the availability of such leave for fathers. According to Rodriguez et al. (2017), its impact on HR was manifested through the addition of new procedures regulating and controlling paternal leaves and managing positions accordingly. For instance, the human resource management was responsible for consulting the legal provision for male employees’ eligibility to obtain paternity leave. Although it complicated labor force adjustment for human resources, it benefited the flexibility of employee engagement due to equality of male and female opportunities to obtain leaves.
Later, more advanced statutes were enacted to recognize the needs of parents under a variety of circumstances. In particular, the Shared Parental Leave Regulations of 2014 addressed the legal possibility of both parents sharing parental leave by allocating partial duration of the leave to their partners on lawful terms (CIPD, 2022). It was introduced due to the societal request for the advancement of gender equality rights in the workplace. Lee and Stead (2007) assert that the introduction of the shared leave regulations changed the human resource management in terms of employee rights and needs recognition. In particular, the inclusion of fathers’ concerns about post-birth leave contributed to the gender equality facilitation in the workplace. As a result, the integration of such provisions allowed for building a strong framework for talent-based human capital accumulation through retention (Armstrong and Brown, 2019). Despite the negative effect of the partial absence of both mothers and fathers from the workplace, the organizations benefited from the opportunity to retain professionals in the contemporary, highly competitive job market.
Time of Work and Wages
The regulation of time of work and payment has been addressed by the specific statutes contributing to the employment law of the UK within the past five decades. The Working Time Regulations of 1998, which were amended in 2005, were introduced because of the necessity to hold employers accountable for the duration of a working day, week, or year with respect to employees’ needs. In particular, this statute introduced a limitation on long working hours, established a list of paid holidays, and legally recognized the duration of breaks an employer might take from work (The Working Time Regulations 1998,” 1998). The Working Time Regulations of 1998 were beneficial for employees due to the recognition of their rights to rest and have reasonable work duration.
It changed human resource management in terms of the development of time-bound schedules for efficient performance. According to GBR Editorial Team (2021), it imposed limitations on organizations as per the quantity of employees’ time contribution to company performance. In such a manner, the human resource management was obligated to oversee and control the working schedules that would maximize employees’ contributions while complying with the law provisions. Overall, some constraints on the budget and operations of organizations and human resource departments are evident, implying a negative effect of the legislation. On the other hand, Armstrong (2020) notes that the introduction of the law and its amendments established direct rules as per the appropriate time off work which unified the guidelines and requirements for all employers. Thus, the companies were in equal conditions for competitive advantage gain while adjusting to the new laws.
Another important legislative document addressing the employment regulations was the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. Mayrhofer et al. (2019) assert that the reason it was introduced was the need to regulate the payment for labor that was justified as the minimal possible wage for employees working in the UK labor force. The establishment of a specific sum of money equal to £3.60 for an hour signified a strictly defined level of wages that employers were expected to pay to their employees (“The National Minimum Wage Act 1998,” 1998). In such a manner, this provision changed the payment allocation for provided work for workers, which could not be lower than the assigned sum. The legislation was reasonable since it allowed for guaranteeing the protection of employees from unlawful underpayment (Ozbilgin, 2020). Its disadvantage for human resources was the requirement to adjust their costs to abide by the law and balance the time of work and payment in a way that would maximize organizational benefits without breaching the law. Although such complications were negative for organizational management, they set a higher benchmark for legally-bound human resource procedures.
In addition to the legislation regulating the time and wages for full-time employees, the concerns of part-time workers and fixed-term employees were addressed by the employment law. In particular, the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations of 2000 added clarity as to the legal treatment of such employees. Aust et al. (2018) affirm that the reasons for the implementation of such a legislative initiative were related to the improper instruction on the treatment of part-time employees under the then existent employment law. Ultimately, with this statute, the requirements for organizations employing part-time workers included the necessity to establish treatment compatible with the one for full-time employees (“The Part-time Workers,” 2000). The change these regulations induced for organizational human resource were characterized by clarification of responsibilities.
For example, to comply with the law, companies were required to benefit their part-time workers similar to full-time workers, which complicated the cost-efficiency of the employer-employee relations. According to Parry et al. (2021), the negative implication of this law for human resources is the loss of costs and additional work on the regulation of relations between employers and part-time employees. However, on the positive side, the human resource department obtained an opportunity to register and document part-time workers according to legal guidelines without ambiguity. Therefore, the time of work and wages regulations contributed to the legitimacy of human resource practices, recognized employee needs, and maximized their retention.
Conclusion
Therefore, while examining the impact of employment law in the UK on organizations’ HRM, 16 key legal acts were considered. The introduction of numerous statutes to the employment law of the UK over the past decades has significantly shaped the quality and structure of employer-employee relationships in the workplace setting. The adoption of these statutes has both advantages and disadvantages in terms of impact on human resources departments. The main benefits of implementing these statutes are ensuring a safe workplace to preserve human health, regulating maternity leave, protecting employee data, promoting workplace equality, recognizing employees’ right to rest and reasonable work hours, and protecting employees from improper underpayment. In turn, there are also adverse effects of introducing statutes on HRM. These include increased complexity in the cost-effectiveness of employer-employee relationships, lost costs and extra work to regulate employer-employee relationships, the risk to the legitimacy of human resources work in light of privacy breaches and threats of cyberattacks, and an increase in complaints of discrimination.
Generally, having addressed legal regulations and standardized procedures in approaching such pivotal areas of employment as health and safety, maternity and parental leaves, sex, age, racial discrimination, and others, the employment law contributed to the quality of human resource management quality. It has established clarity, transparency, and equity in workplace relations with the prioritization of the facilitation of individual employees’ experiences and organizational benefits. Indeed, the rights of employees have been assured in a more in-depth manner with the legal articulation of their proper delivery in the workplace. In addition, human resource management has benefited from direct legal instruction on controversial and complex issues, thus becoming more legislature-driven, professional, and effective. Overall, the development of the employment law in the UK has created solid and rational-legal protection for both employees and employers in the context of contemporary social concerns, increasing talent retention and favorable workplace culture.
References
Adams, Z., Bishop, L., Deakin, S., Fenwick, C., Martinsson Garzelli, S., & Rusconi, G. (2019). The economic significance of laws relating to employment protection and different forms of employment: Analysis of a panel of 117 countries, 1990-2013. International Labour Review, 158(1), 1–35. Web.
Almond, P., & Esbester, M. (2018). Regulatory inspection and the changing legitimacy of health and safety. Regulation & Governance, 12(1), 46-63.
Armstrong, M. (2020). Armstrong’s handbook of strategic human resource management: Improve business performance through strategic people management. Kogan Page Publishers.
Armstrong, M., & Brown, D. (2019). Strategic human resource management: Back to the future? A literature review [PDF document]. Web.
Armstrong, M., & Taylor, S. (2020). Armstrong’s handbook of human resource management practice. Kogan Page Publishers.
Aust, I., Muller-Camen, M., & Poutsma, E. (2018). Sustainable HRM: A comparative and international perspective. In Handbook of research on comparative human resource management. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Bratton, J., Gold, J., Bratton, A., & Steele, L. (2021). Human resource management. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Web.
Doellgast, V., Lillie, N., & Pulignano, V. (2018). Reconstructing solidarity: Labour unions, precarious work, and the politics of institutional change in Europe. Oxford University Press.
Employment Protection Act 1975. Web.
Ferdosi, M. (2021). The development of employment protection legislation in the United Kingdom (1963-2013). Labor History, 62(4), 511-531. Web.
GBR Editorial Team. (2021). Impact of UK legal framework on HRM. George Business Review. Web.
Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Web.
Health and Safety Executive. (n. d.). Health and safety at work: Criminal and civil law. Web.
Lane, J. A., & Ingleby, R. (2018). Indirect discrimination, justification and proportionality: Are UK claimants at a disadvantage?. Industrial Law Journal, 47(4), 531-552.
Lee, C. (2019). Fifteen years on: The legacy of section 28 for LGBT+ teachers in English schools. Sex Education, 19(6), 675-690.
Lee, M. M. & Stead, V. (2007). Human resource development in the United Kingdom. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 9(3), 297 – 308. Web.
Mayrhofer, W., Gooderham, P. N., & Brewster, C. (2019). Context and HRM: Theory, evidence, and proposals. International Studies of Management & Organization, 49(4), 355-371.
Murphy, K. R. (2018). The legal context of the management of human resources. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 157–182. Web.
National Minimum Wage Act 1998. Web.
Ozbilgin, M. (2020). International human resource management: Theory and practice. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Parry, E., Morley, M. J., & Brewster, C. (2021). The Oxford handbook of contextual approaches to human resource management. Oxford University Press.
Rodriguez, J. K., Johnstone, S., & Procter, S. (2017). Regulation of work and employment: advances, tensions and future directions in research in international and comparative HRM. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(21), 2957-2982. Web.
Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Web.
Squire Patton Boggs. (2018). Employment & labour law in the United Kingdom. Lexology. Web.
Stewart, G. L., & Brown, K. G. (2019). Human resource management. John Wiley & Sons.
The Chartered Institute of Personnel Development. (2022). Maternity, paternity, and adoption rights. Web.
The Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. Web.
The Working Time Regulations 1998. Web.
Veale, M., Binns, R., & Edwards, L. (2018). Algorithms that remember: model inversion attacks and data protection law. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376(2133), 1-15.