Home > All journals > International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations > 40(1) >
$15.00 - Rental (PDF) *
$29.00 - Article (PDF) *
Maxim Usynin
International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations
Volume 40, Issue 1 (2024) pp. 1 – 36
https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2024004
Abstract
Forced labour is a widespread risk for workers in the shipping industry. Traditional approaches to tackling the problem rely on the rules of flag state and port state jurisdiction, leaving a significant margin of political discretion in dealing with violations of labour rights. This article examines whether private enforcement mechanisms in the form of tort actions can play a role in securing the labour rights of workers and providing them with access to remedies. Following recent case law, it examines the possibility of enforcing the duty of care as stated in the company materials, in particular the growing number of corporate annual reports. The article relies on empirical material, consisting of the statements published by shipping companies under the UK Modern Slavery Act [MSA]. In addition to the descriptive observations on compliance, the study carries out a content analysis of the statements, seeking to identify the patterns of reporting and industry best practices. The final part of the article examines whether corporate undertakings as laid down in modern slavery statements can serve as grounds for tort liability. Based on the empirical data, the study concludes that the statements provide insufficient grounds for holding companies liable for labour rights violations.
Keywords
Modern Slavery, Forced Labour, Liner Shipping, Annual Reports, Published Materials, Private Enforcement, Supply Chain Liability
Extract
Many find the prospect of military unions totally inimical to the nature and functioning of the armed forces. Yet, a number of countries allow some form of military unionism, while others vehemently resist any form of independent union based on the premise that this undermines discipline, cohesion, and loyalty. This article examines how four different countries – the United Kingdom, Canada, South Africa, and Germany – have dealt with the issue of military unionism. The British Armed Forces, like many other English-speaking countries, have tended to approach employee relations from a typically unitarist position, which translates into union suppression or avoidance. The Canadian Armed Forces opted to circumvent the need for a military union by adopting a more human relations or neo-unitarist approach to employee relations. In South Africa, the military has been obliged by legal decree to accept a more pluralist dispensation, which has led to an overtly confrontational employment relationship. In Germany, where a union-like professional association exists, the approach has been more cooperative, even corporatist, typifying the European experience and philosophy towards unions, even in the military. In analysing the management of employee relations from these different typologies, the implications of union avoidance and acceptance within the armed forces are evaluated.
International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations