The plights of migrant domestic workers in the UK: a legal perspective

Doctoral thesis English OPEN
Salih, Ismail Idowu

As a group of migrant workers, overseas domestic workers (‘‘ODWs’’) have been extensively studied in the migration, geography, and sociology disciplines. Legal scholarly publications addressing the shortfalls in the rights of these workers are beginning to catch up. The International Labour Organization (‘‘ILO’’) supports the argument that ODWs are by far the most vulnerable group of migrant workers. In the United Kingdom, the problem faced by ODWs is complicated by the hostile immigration policy and exclusion clauses in the employment law. Despite the ODWs having been exposed to a series of abuses, exploitations, and occupational health and safety hazards like workers in other occupations, they are unduly excluded from the protection and benefits available to those other workers. This thesis used a combined doctrinal and empirical approach to examine failed immigration policies, ambiguities in the employment law, exclusion clauses in the health and safety law and working time regulation, and how the justice system has been failing the ODWs. The research found the UK Government’s refusal to extend some key employment legislations to protect household workers, the non-implementation of major international frameworks that protect domestic workers, and the inseparable link between employment and immigration create hurdles to achieve justice for ODWs. The thesis argues that although ODWs’ personal attributes, such as poor socio-economic background, may constitute a vulnerability risk, ODWs’ experiences are marred by the current visa system that increases their reliance on employers and has significantly tilted the employer-employee power in the employer’s favour, leading to continued abuse, exploitation, injustice, human trafficking, and modern-day slavery. This thesis advocates a review of the policy on ODWs, a re-examination of the strict link between immigration and employment, and a review of the law on employment discrimination. Finally, the thesis found a link between culture, ethnicity, and exploitation; this link needs further study.
  • References (27)
    27 references, page 1 of 3

    xi 59. UDHR …………….………….……………..….. Universal Declaration of Human Rights 60. UK ……………………..………………………………………...……… United Kingdom 61. UKAIT ……..…….….Law Report ( United Kingdom Asylum and Immigration Tribunal) 62. UKBA ………………..……….……………….……….. United Kingdom Border Agency 63. UKFTT ……….…………………………………….. United Kingdom First Tier Tribunal 64. UKHL ………….….…..…United Kingdom House of Lords (2001-2009); neutral citation 65. UK P.C ………................…United Kingdom Privy Council (from 2001) ; neutral citation 66. UKSC ………….…..….… United Kingdom Supreme Court (from 2009); neutral citation 67. UN ……………………….……….………………………..……………… United Nations 68. UNHCR ………………..………….….. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 69. UNTS ………………………...……………………….……..United Nations Treaty Series 70. UN WOMEN …The United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment

    of Women 71. WHO ………………….…………………….………………... World Health Organisation 72. W.L.R ………………….……………….……………………………Weekly Law Reports 73. WIEGO ……………....…. Women in Informal Employment: Globalizing and Organising

    LIST OF CASES 1. Adekeye v The Post Office (No.2) [1995] I.C.R. 540; [1995] I.R.L.R. 297; Times,

    February 23, 1995. EAT 2. Addis v Gramophone Company Limited [1909] A.C. 488 3. Akwiwu v Onu [2013] I.R.L.R. 523; [2013] Eq. L.R. 577; (2013) 157(19) S.J.L.B. 35 4. Albert Ruckdeschel & Co v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St Annen (117/76) [1977] E.C.R.

    1753; [1979] 2 C.M.L.R. 445 5. Alcan Extrusions v Yates [1996] I.R.L.R. 327 6. Allen v Hounga [2012] EWCA Civ 609; [2012] I.R.L.R. 685 (CA (Civ Div)) 7. Allen v TRW Systems Ltd [2013] I.C.R. D13 EAT 8. Arbeiterwohlfahrt der Stadt Berlin EV v Botel (C-360/90) [1992] E.C.R. I-3589; [1992] 3

    C.M.L.R. 446 9. Arora v Rockwell Automation Ltd [2006] UKEAT 0097_06_2104 10. AS (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 1469 11. Ashmore, Benson, Pease & Co v Dawson [1973] 1 W.L.R. 828 13. Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2010] I.R.L.R 70, CA (Civ. Div.) 14. Aziz v Republic of Yemen [2005] EWCA Civ 745; [2005] I.C.R 1391 15. B and B Viennese Fashions v Losane [1952] 1 All E.R 909 16. Baccus Srl v Servicio Nacional del Trigo [1957] 1 Q.B.D 438 17. Baldwin v British Coal Corporation [1995] I.R.L.R 139 (Q.B.D) 18. Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group (C-262/88) [1991] 1 Q.B.D 344;

    [1991] 2 W.L.R. 72; [1990] 2 All E.R. 660; [1990] E.C.R. I-1889 19. Bampouras v Edge Hill University (2010) 154(4) S.J.L.B. 28 21. Berg v Blackburn Rovers Football Club & Athletic plc. [2013] EWHC 1070 (Ch), [2013]

    I.R.L.R 537 28. Brown v Secretary of State for Scotland C-197/86 [1988] 3 C.M.L.R. 403 29. Bruce v Wiggins Teape (Stationery) Ltd [1994] I.R.L.R 536 EAT) 30. Brunnhofer v Bank der Osterreichischen Postsparkasse AG (C-381/99) [2001] All E.R.

    (EC) 693; [2001] E.C.R. I-4961; [2001] 3 C.M.L.R. 9; [2001] I.R.L.R. 571 31. Buckland v. Bournemouth University Higher Education Corp [2010] EWCA Civ. 121 32. Byrne Bros (Formwork) Ltd v Baird [2002] I.C.R. 667 33. Callo v Brouncker (1831) 4 Carrington and Payne 518, 172 All.E.R 34. Canada Life Ltd v. Gray & Anor [2004] UKEAT 0657_03_1301 (13 January 2004) 35. Caramba-Coker v Military Affairs Office of the Kuwait Embassy No. EAT/1054/02/RN 36. Carter v Qatar Airways Ltd [2003] UKEAT 0960_02_0306 37. Catherine Haigh Harlequin Hair Design v Seed [1990] I.R.L.R 175, EAT 38. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire v Khan [2001] UKHL 48; [2001] 1 W.L.R. 1947 39. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire v A [2004] UKHL 21; [2005] 1 A.C. 51 40. Clark v Nomura International PLC [2000] I.R.L.R 766 48. Crawford v Suffolk Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust [2012] EWCA Civ.

    138, [2012] I.R.L.R 402 56. Delaney v Staples (trading as De Montfort Recruitment) [1992] I.C.R 57. Dietman v Brent London Borough Council [1988] I.C.R. 842 58. Duke v GEC Reliance Limited [1988] IRLR 118, HL 59. Dunlop Tyres Ltd v. Blows [2001] EWCA Civ. 1032; [2001] I.R.L.R. 629 60. Durrani v London Borough of Ealing UKEAT/0454/2012/RN 61. EK v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] UKUT 00313 (IAC) 2013

  • Metrics
    No metrics available
Share - Bookmark