IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indlaw/v51y2022i3p696-716..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Discrimination by Legal Design? UK Supreme Court in Mencap v Tomlinson-Blake Finds Care Workers are Not Protected by Minimum Wage Law for Sleep-in Shifts

Author

Listed:
  • Ljb Hayes

Abstract

In Mencap v Tomlinson Blake the Supreme Court finds that the UK’s statutory national minimum wage scheme excludes care workers from protection during sleep-in shifts. UK employment rights thus move further from international labour standards, including ILO Convention 189. This commentary argues that Mencap points to discrimination by legal design. The Supreme Court gives expansive and uncritical regard to the wording and circumstances of a 1998 Low Pay Commission report that recommends residential care workers be excluded from protection as a ‘special treatment’. It shows that care workers’ entitlement to statutory protection is dependent on their contractual arrangements and does not consider inequality of bargaining power. The judgment erases caring labour of its cognitive and professional skills and puts care workers at a particular disadvantage. The care sector is notorious for the poor functioning of its labour market as well as for low pay. Care workers are mainly women and are disproportionately black and minority ethnic women. The discriminatory intent of Parliament, as explored by the Supreme Court in Mencap, reveals that the UK’s statutory minimum wage scheme is currently unable to provide workers with the dignity that would come from assigning a minimum value to the full range of care work.

Suggested Citation

  • Ljb Hayes, 2022. "Discrimination by Legal Design? UK Supreme Court in Mencap v Tomlinson-Blake Finds Care Workers are Not Protected by Minimum Wage Law for Sleep-in Shifts," Industrial Law Journal, Industrial Law Society, vol. 51(3), pages 696-716.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:51:y:2022:i:3:p:696-716.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/indlaw/dwac024
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:51:y:2022:i:3:p:696-716.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ilj .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.