The Interaction of Lay Judges and Professional Judges in French, German and British Labour Courts

Authors: Susan Corby, Pete Burgess, Armin Hoeland, Helene Michel, Laurent Willemez

Abstract:

In German 1st instance labour courts, lay judges always sit with a professional judge and in British and French 1st instance labour courts, lay judges sometimes sit with a professional judge. The lay judges’ main contribution is their workplace knowledge, but they act in a juridical setting where legal norms prevail. Accordingly, the research question is: does the professional judge dominate the lay judges? The research, funded by the Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, is based on over 200 qualitative interviews conducted in France, Germany and Great Britain in 2016-17 with lay and professional judges. Each interview lasted an hour on average, was audio-recorded, transcribed and then analysed using MaxQDA. Status theories, which argue that external sources of (perceived) status are imported into the court, and complementary notions of informational advantage suggest professional judges might exercise domination and control. Furthermore, previous empirical research on British and German labour courts, now some 30 years old, found that professional judges dominated. More recent research on lay judges and professional judges in criminal courts also found professional judge domination. Our findings, however, are more nuanced and distinguish between the hearing and deliberations, and also between the attitudes of judges in the three countries. First, in Germany and Great Britain the professional judge has specialist knowledge and expertise in labour law. In contrast, French professional judges do not study employment law and may only seldom adjudicate on employment law cases. Second, although the professional judge chairs and controls the hearing when he/she sits with lay judges in all three countries, exceptionally in Great Britain lay judges have some latent power as they have to take notes systematically due to the lack of recording technology. Such notes can be material if a party complains of bias, or if there is an appeal. Third, as to labour court deliberations: in France, the professional judge alone determines the outcome of the case, but only if the lay judges have been unable to agree at a previous hearing, which only occurs in 20% of cases. In Great Britain and Germany, although the two lay judges and the professional judge have equal votes, the contribution of British lay judges’ workplace knowledge is less important than that of their German counterparts. British lay judges essentially only sit on discrimination cases where the law, the purview of the professional judge, is complex. They do not sit routinely on unfair dismissal cases where workplace practices are often a key factor in the decision. Also, British professional judges are less reliant on their lay judges than German professional judges. Whereas the latter are career judges, the former only become professional judges after having had several years’ experience in the law and many know, albeit indirectly through their clients, about a wide range of workplace practices. In conclusion, whether or if the professional judge dominates lay judges in labour courts varies by country, although this is mediated by the attitudes of the interactionists.

Keywords: cross-national comparisons, labour courts, professional judges, lay judges