Many labour law scholars in the UK are disillusioned with recent judicial decisions by the House of Lords and Supreme Court on the contract of employment. The argument made in this article is that, although there are good reasons for disillusionment with the Johnson v Unisys progeny, there have nevertheless been potentially some very positive developments for employees in recent decisions. On procedural fairness, the High Court has read in principles of ‘natural justice’ to the employment contract, whereas both High Court and Court of Appeal decisions seem to see courts intervening, at least in some areas, in the employment relation also on the grounds of substantive fairness. It is suggested here that these recent cases are evidence of a nascent duty of ‘fairness’ in the contract of employment, and the case is made for explicit recognition of, and development of, this duty. A practical application is provided, to finish, with the topical phenomenon of so-called ‘zero hours contracts’.

中文翻译：

---

雇佣合同的公平性

英国的许多劳动法学者对上议院和最高法院最近关于雇佣合同的司法决定感到失望。本文提出的论点是，虽然对 Johnson 诉 Unisys 的后代有充分的理由感到幻灭，但在最近的决定中，员工可能有一些非常积极的发展。在程序公平方面，高等法院已将“自然正义”原则纳入雇佣合同，而高等法院和上诉法院的裁决似乎都认为法院至少在某些领域干预雇佣关系也是基于以下理由实质公平。这里建议，这些最近的案例是雇佣合同中“公平”的新生义务的证据，并且该案例是为了明确承认，和发展，这个职责。提供了一个实际应用，以结束所谓的“零工时合同”的热门现象。