In this chapter, we detail common approaches to assembling the various concepts, practices and strategies explored previously. In developing an integrated, strategically aligned and psychologically engaging performance and reward system, we need to remember that nothing is ever ‘finished’, that change is the great constant, and that a ‘set and forget’ mindset is destined to fail. Accordingly, we examine the requirements for performance and reward system review, the metrics and tools available to analyse the strengths and weaknesses of current practice configurations, the steps involved in system redesign, and challenges that may be encountered along the way. Finally, we consider the importance of rehearsing and piloting the proposed changes before full rollout, as well as the basic requirements for effective implementation. As in previous chapters, we include reality checks for each of our two key integrative themes: strategic alignment and employee psychological engagement.

This chapter explores employment testing bias and fairness in India. The developments that have led to fair employment practices in India with special reference to affirmative action policies, the reservation system, and the regulatory authorities that oversee hiring processes are reviewed. Measures aimed at the prevention of biases, including structured interviews, blind hiring, and training about unconscious bias are discussed. The chapter also reviews the legal framework for employment fairness, the role of public and private sector organizations, and issues such as the impact of artificial intelligence on selection procedures. Results from a survey of Indian organizations are used to provide empirical insights into the existence, as well as effectiveness, of fairness policies in curbing hiring biases. Further, the chapter compares the situation in India to global perspectives on employment testing bias and fairness and highlights the need to further refine regulatory mechanisms and organizational policies in hiring. Finally, this work indicates significant gaps across various aspects of fair hiring practices in India and identifies areas that require focus and research.

Where the reason for dismissal concerns business reorganisation rather than individual fault, there is a statutory right for employees with a qualifying period of continuous service to claim redundancy payments based on the number of years of service. In some cases of economic dismissal, the reason for dismissal may not fall within the statutory concept of redundancy, but in such cases dismissal can be regarded as fair as dismissal for some other substantial reason. There is statutory protection for wages and some compensation for dismissal in the event of the employer’s insolvency. Dismissals in connection with the sale of the business or outsourcing to a different contractor are automatically unfair dismissals unless the transferor or transferee can demonstrate that the workers were dismissed for redundancy unconnected to the sale.

The Mexican Constitution prohibits any form of discrimination that infringes on human dignity, rights, and freedoms. This is further reinforced by the federal labor law, which outlines discriminatory workplace practices, and the federal law for preventing and eliminating discrimination, which provides preventive measures, equality initiatives, and complaint procedures. Employers in Mexico are legally required to adhere to these regulations. Although no specific legal standards exist for demonstrating reliability and validity in employment selection tests, employers using such tests must demonstrate their job-related relevance. Employers found guilty of discrimination may face fines ranging from 1,400 to 30,000 USD, with penalties determined by intent, severity, and recurrence. Common administrative sanctions include mandatory training for involved staff and internal awareness campaigns. Publicizing these cases has proven effective in raising awareness in human resources professionals, encouraging the elimination of discriminatory practices in the workplace. These legal and administrative measures aim to foster a fair and inclusive work environment in Mexico.

This chapter examines bias and fairness in employment testing in the Netherlands, addressing twenty key questions related to historical and cultural developments, legal frameworks, professional guidelines, and psychometric issues. Although equal treatment is a fundamental legal principle, perceptions of hiring discrimination remain widespread. The chapter explores demographic shifts that have shaped discussions on employment fairness and outlines the Dutch legal framework, focusing on the Equal Treatment Act and the role of the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights in handling discrimination complaints. It also highlights the relatively limited attention given to fairness in professional guidelines for practitioners. Furthermore, the chapter evaluates how psychological tests are assessed for bias, particularly through analyses of score differences, differential item functioning, and measurement invariance, while noting the scarcity of research on predictive bias. Emerging challenges, such as algorithmic bias, are also examined. Finally, the chapter discusses recent legislative efforts to promote fairness in employment testing, including a proposed law that was rejected in 2024.

While employers seek numerical and functional flexibility from the workforce, the power of employers to rewrite the terms of the contract unilaterally and to offer only precarious work packages undermines job security and economic security. The law provides little protection for employees, though continuity of employment and a permanent job can sometimes be established through statutory measures. Legislation may grant employees a right to more predictable work.

Based on international standards, the EU Directive on Working Time, implemented in the Working Time Regulations, places limits on the working week, mandates rest periods each day and each week, and provides for paid annual leave. These rights are subject to various exclusions for certain types of employment, permit some opt-outs by terms in the contract of employment, and also permit collective agreements to modify the rights. The chapter considers these various matters, and concludes by examining the weak remedies provided by health and safety inspectors and some civil claims.

In this chapter, we examine pay negotiations (collective and individual) and pay communication policies (national policies and firm strategy). Pay negotiation creates substantial differences in pay across individuals, groups and organisations. We begin with an overview of the different wage-setting mechanisms that include collective bargaining, individual negotiation and legal minimum wage (such as Award wages in Australia). We then explore collective pay bargaining, starting from its main concepts and cross-national differences in the industrial relations system. Following this, we delve into the main features and major strategies of collective pay bargaining. We then examine individual pay negotiation, discussing the process of pay negotiation, factors that drive negotiation propensity, and the main strategies and tactics involved. Special attention is paid here to the role of gender in individual pay negotiation. The chapter concludes with an examination of pay transparency and pay communication, including the recent regulatory movement towards pay transparency and the strategic considerations of pay transparency policies.

This chapter examines employment testing bias and fairness in Japan. Japan’s hiring practices are shaped by its historical ethnic homogeneity, employer discretion, and a legal framework emphasizing procedural fairness over outcome equity. Anti-discrimination laws protect women, older workers, and people with disabilities, but issues concerning nationality, race, and minority groups such as the Ainu and Dowa have historically received less attention. Regulatory bodies, including the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare, issue guidelines to ensure fair hiring practices, but these lack effective enforcement. Legal remedies for discriminatory hiring are rare due to the high burden of proof and limited application of disparate impact doctrine. Traditional aptitude and psychological tests remain central in employment selection, with the increasing emergence of artificial intelligence-based hiring practices raising new fairness concerns. In response, some employers are adopting blind procedures, including anonymized resumes. As globalization and labor shortages intensify, Japan’s employment practices face increasing pressure to evolve toward greater inclusion and equity.

Employees who have been dismissed may bring a claim under the common law for wrongful dismissal where the dismissal was a breach of contract. Compensation for wrongful dismissal is usually limited to compensation for a period of reasonable notice of dismissal. Statute provides minimum periods of notice that must be given. Compensation for failure to give proper notice can be avoided if the employer can demonstrate that the employee committed a repudiatory breach of contract. Claims for compensation for other kinds of breach of the terms of the contract may be available, but there can be no compensation for breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence in the context of dismissal. Nor can damages be obtained for breach of a contractualdisciplinary procedure; an employee can only obtain an injunction to require the employer to follow the correct procedure. In general, however, injunctions against dismissal are unavailable because of the breakdown of mutual trust and confidence between employer and employee.