(Click here to go directly to the Festival web-site)
11 May
It all started with the certainty claimed by this Tweet :
If your workplace isn’t safe, you don’t have to work there. Section 44 of the 1996 Employment Rights Act is clear on this. Stay home, save lives.
— James Meadway (@meadwaj) May 10, 2020
And then casually looking up the statutory reference (s. 44 Employment Rights Act 1996 (as amended)) :
Even if it did help to invoke s. 44, it's hard to see why anyone would rely on this Act of Parliament, let alone this section, when enforcement of rights in Emloyment Tribunals is a costly and hardly easy remedy :
— THE AGENT APSLEY #ScrapUniversalCredit #JC4PM2019 (@THEAGENTAPSLEY) May 10, 2020
Is there some case-law that justifies referring to it at all ?
Or this Tweet ? :
- If your workplace isn’t safe, you don’t have to work there.
— Novara Media (@novaramedia) May 10, 2020
- Read Section 44 of the 1996 Employment Rights Act. 👇https://t.co/3L5KTZAerJ pic.twitter.com/fSx2ELwsdD
And replying :
Or s. 230 [https://t.co/l81upd9weW] ?
— THE AGENT APSLEY #ScrapUniversalCredit #JC4PM2019 (@THEAGENTAPSLEY) May 11, 2020
The word 'employee' appears in s. 44 (not 'worker'), and is defined in s. 230(1) :
'In this Act "employee" means an individual who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, worked under) a contract of employment' https://t.co/VnZZyVgeAl
In conclusion (of some sort) :
You're entirely correct to say that people must take advice on their individual circumstances before seeking to rely on sections 44/100. I am concerned about the various tweets flying around which suggest that these sections are a panacea - they are not, they are fact specific.
— Matt Sellwood (@MattSellwood) May 11, 2020
If you want to Tweet, Tweet away here
Unless stated otherwise, all films reviewed were screened at Festival Central (Arts Picturehouse, Cambridge)
