IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indlaw/v51y2022i4p927-954..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Migrant Workers and Wage Theft: Is Legal Action an Effective Form of Collective Action?

Author

Listed:
  • Michelle O’Sullivan
  • Juliet MacMahon

Abstract

Vulnerable migrant workers are generally very reluctant to take legal action to challenge exploitation given the many obstacles they face, and instances of such action are important to examine for their exceptionality. This article presents a case study of non-unionised Portuguese construction workers who engaged in a lengthy legal battle against their Portuguese employers for various forms of wage theft while they worked in Ireland. The aim of the article is to assess the extent to which their legal action was an effective form of collective action. To do so, we draw on industrial relations and law literature to explore the purposes of collective action and litigation and apply this understanding to assess the outcomes of the migrant workers’ legal cases. We find that the workers’ legal action was a partially effective form of collective action that sought to address the source of their discontent. The case study highlights the regulatory dilemmas that arise in an institutional environment where workers ability to engage in voluntarist forms of collective action is constrained and they seek to use the legal system as collective subjects.

Suggested Citation

  • Michelle O’Sullivan & Juliet MacMahon, 2022. "Migrant Workers and Wage Theft: Is Legal Action an Effective Form of Collective Action?," Industrial Law Journal, Industrial Law Society, vol. 51(4), pages 927-954.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:51:y:2022:i:4:p:927-954.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/indlaw/dwac013
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:51:y:2022:i:4:p:927-954.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ilj .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.