What will this mean for employment law?

Under Article 4, "enforced labour" is prohibited. Despite claims to the contrary, it is hardly likely that doctors or any other such employees will be able to rely on this, even if they do work long hours, since this requires genuinely forced labour ie for there to be physical or mental constraint. Economic duress is not enough. Instead, employers should ensure they comply with their health and safety obligations and the limits imposed by the Working Time Regulations.

Article 5 provides a right to liberty. This could be used to question the fairness of detention and search procedures. However, an employment relationship is of a private nature, and essentially this is meant to impact upon a public body's conduct towards others. So instead, therefore, it will be questionable as to whether or not the Courts will be prepared to challenge any fairness if a dismissal is tainted by an unreasonable detention and search.

There is also a right to a fair trial under Article 6. This will be directly applicable to a public authority's acts. But it will not apply to where there are proceedings on the basis of a private relationship between an employer and an employee – even where the employer is a public authority. Accordingly, exaggerated claims about how disciplinary procedures will be affected should be treated with some scepticism. Of course, employers should still check that their disciplinary and grievance procedures ensure a fair practice.

Article 8 emphasises the right to respect for privacy and family life. This opens up more possible avenues than other rights. Essentially, there will be issues surrounding when an employer is allowed to intercept communications such as e-mails (see also 'Silent calling', page 51). How far cctv can be used may also be at issue, although this is already regulated under the Data Protection Act. There will probably be renewed emphasis on confidentiality and consent to medical enquiries.

Behaviour out of the workplace, such as political activities, may well mean vetting references or prohibiting appointments on that basis will no longer be tenable. Issues concerning behaviour outside the workplace are not likely to enable the employer to argue that there should be a dismissal, except where it affects performance in relation to the job.

The Act may influence the Court's views on how far employees should be permitted to enjoy the new "family friendly" rights of parental leave and the right to reasonable time off. Employers should ensure they operate all parental leave and dependant time-off schemes consistently and fairly.

Article 9 also gives rights to the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. These are qualified. However, it could give rise to competing tensions between, say, one form of discrimination and another. For example, if there is a genuinely held religious belief which conflicts with an obligation that has been incorporated as a matter of social policy, then it would be difficult to see which way the Courts will decide.