Category: employment

‘This article examines the origins of paragraph 2.42 of the guidance issued under the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which concerns identification. It traces the origins of this paragraph to a divergence of legal approach between the Supreme Court of India (SCI) and the International Labour Organisation on a presumption of economic coercion amongst those working for less than the legally mandated minimum wage. The approach of the ILO has since evolved, but its position in 2005–6 is reflected in paragraph 2.42. That which of the two approaches is taken matters can be seen in the response to wage conditions amongst garment workers in Leicester. The difference had two aspects: first, the characterisation of freedom or otherwise of those working for less than the minimum wage and second, responsibilities in law. It will be argued that the reasoning of the SCI provides a sounder starting point. The article will first consider relevant economic theories. Next, it will examine whether the guidance can legitimately prevent human rights law from drawing on breaches of labour law and how this affects responsibilities for fundamental labour rights. Following, UK national minimum wage law will be considered. Finally, amendment to the guidance is recommended, with practical illustrations.’

Full Story

Industrial Law Journal, 28th February 2025

Source: academic.oup.com