Two Views of ‘Subordination’: the Personal Scope of Employment Discrimination Law in Jivraj v Hashwani

In Jivraj v Hashwani, the Supreme Court considered what requirements are necessary for a relationship to be considered as an employment relationship for the purposes of determining the scope of domestic employment discrimination law. The Court held that an element of subordination was necessary for the relationship to be considered employment under a contract personally to do work. This article discusses what the Court in Jivraj meant by this requirement, contrasting two differing views of subordination. It examines some implications of the decision for the relationship between employment law and anti-discrimination law, and for recent debates on the scope of employment law more generally.

Private equity, the minimalist organization and the quality of employment relations

This article develops a firm-level analysis of how the quality of employment relations following acquisition by private equity firms (PEFs) is contingent upon the strategic intent of those firms and the post-acquisition organizational choices they make. The efficiency gains that PEFs seek in acquired companies are expected to encourage restructuring towards a minimalist organization. However, the form such an organization takes is seen to depend on whether PEF strategy is oriented primarily towards extracting short-term value from acquired assets rather than towards renewing and developing those assets. Contrasts in the process of restructuring and in organizational form associated with these two strategies will have different implications for the quality of employment relations. The way in which PEFs restructure the companies or units they acquire is the key intervening factor between the strategic intent of PEFs and impact they have on the quality of employment relations. © The Author(s) 2010.

Autonomy and Control of State Agencies:Comparing States and Agencies

Do public organizations with similar tasks or structures differ across states with respect to their autonomy and control? If so, why? By comparing the autonomy, control and internal management of state agencies, this book shows how New Public Management doctrines actually work in three small European states with different politico-administrative regimes. Using a unique set of similar survey data on 226 state agencies in Norway, Ireland and Flanders, this study explains differences in agency autonomy, control and management by referring to international isomorphic pressures, state-specific politico-administrative regimes and characteristics of agencies. Therefore, organization theory and neo-institutional schools are used to formulate four competing theoretical perspectives and hypotheses are tested through simple and advanced statistical techniques. By comparing practices between states and between types of agencies, this study substantially enhances scientific knowledge about why public organizations are granted autonomy, why they are controlled in specific ways, and how autonomy affects internal management.

Autonomy and regulation of state agencies:Reinforcement, indifference or compensation?

This paper analyses the relationships between the autonomy and regulation of state agencies in Norway, Ireland and Flanders (Belgium). The empirical basis is provided by broad surveys of public sector organizations carried out in 2002-2004. Three hypotheses on these relationships are formulated and examined, indicating different patterns. The reinforcement hypothesis, stating a negative relationship does not get any support. On the other hand, the compensation hypothesis, stating a positive relationship gets some support. In general, however, the indifference hypothesis, stating low or no correlations seems to be the most adequate. The hypotheses are also linked to prevalent administrative doctrines, and the empirical findings indicate how relevant they are. © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008.