Employee Participation Rights During Company Restructuring: Lessons Learned from the “Capability for Voice” in British Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the current economic context, marked by a growing number of company restructuring processes as well as a rising unemployment rate, it seems important to address the employee’s issue of job security as well as the need to reduce the negative impacts that some restructuring processes have on businesses and employees. One solution in this regard is to ensure that employees are heard during the restructuring process. Since the Quebec and the federal Canadian legal frameworks on the subject offer insufficient protections, the author’s goal is to find solutions in order to strengthen the existing frameworks as well as to suggest different ways of adopting other legal information and consultation procedures applicable to company restructuring in general. To this end, the author is interested in whether a process of information and consultation of employees in restructuring matters, similar to what exists in the European Union, is possible in Canada, in light of the British experience. In fact, the United Kingdom’s case is particularly interesting for Canada, because this country originally applied a collective laissez-faire approach to employee participation rights during company restructuring which was similar to the North American one. It was only because of mandatory directives of the European Union on the subject that the United Kingdom has set up information and consultation procedures recognized by law. In order to perform this study, we have used the method of comparative law and as a theoretical framework we have applied the capability for voice, developed by Amartya Sen, which provides a method for assessing the impact and relevance of Parliament acts that recognize extended participation rights to employees in regard to a company’s economic decisions. In doing so, we assess the extent that the British statutory instruments, related to the subject matter under study, meet the conditions of the capability for voice, which are prerequisites to pass from the involvement stage of the employees in company decisions to their real influence on such issues.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".