This chapter examines employment testing bias and unfairness in Romania, the legal framework, discrimination types, and the role of regulatory bodies. Multiple organizational stakeholders are involved in employment testing, yet the Romanian legal system lacks explicit regulations on test bias and fairness. Although EU directives mandate equal treatment, they do not require validation of employment tests. The National Council for Combating Discrimination oversees enforcement but lacks authority over compensation or reinstatement. Employers, particularly in the private sector, often outsource recruitment and selection. Psychological testing is primarily governed by the Romanian College of Psychologists. Bias detection and disparate impact assessment remain underdeveloped, with limited legal requirements for test validity evidence. Romania’s approach to balancing validity and diversity remains informal, and artificial intelligence-based hiring tools are scarcely used. Legal consequences for discrimination range from fines to criminal penalties, yet selection methods remain largely unregulated. The chapter highlights gaps between advances in psychometrics and their application in employment selection.

Statutory employment rights have traditionally been confined to employees, excluding independent contractors. Courts resist the use of misleading terms in contracts in order to create the appearance that many employees are independent contractors. Recent legislation has extended some statutory protections to some economically dependent independent contractors known as ’limb b workers’. Triangular relations where the function of employer is distributed between two or more businesses create the problem for agency workers and platform workers that it is unclear which, if any, business bears the responsibility of conforming to employment rights.

EU law has developed mandatory requirements for employers to inform and consult employee representatives. These various provisions remain in force in British law post-Brexit, though Brexit will clearly have implications for their future development. In this chapter, we consider information and consultation obligations relating to collective redundancies, as well as the more wide ranging provisions in the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004, and the Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 1999, as amended in 2010.

Rewarding employees based on their performance is a crucial part of rewards management. Performance-based payments can illicit two behavioural responses, summarised as the incentive effect and the sorting effect. ‘Incentive effect’ refers to employees being more likely to increase their work effort when they believe it will be rewarded with higher pay. ‘Sorting effect’ has to do with the movements of people across organisations: highly capable and competitive employees are attracted to meritocratic organisations, while low performers are driven out of such organisations. This chapter examines the main types of individual and collective incentive plans, focusing on short-term plans (usually one year or less of the performance cycle). The individual performance pay includes merit payments, results-based individual incentives (piece rate, sales commission and goal-based bonus), and employee recognition plans. Collective incentives are profit-sharing, gainsharing, goal-sharing and team incentives. The chapter also discusses how each incentive plan aligns with the firm’s strategies and the implications of implementing a complex pay system with multiple types of performance pay plans.

This chapter presents the answers to the twenty questions on employment bias and fairness in Spain. It describes the national demographic and administrative-political characteristics. In Spain, bias is associated with the notions of equality and non-discrimination, and it is regulated by both Spanish laws and EU regulations. The chapter describes (a) which groups are protected by the law, (b) which are the main regulatory authorities (general and sectorial laws, and EU regulations), (c) which employers are covered, (d) the guidelines used in Spain to guide professional activity, (e) the nine categories of discriminatory actions and situations distinguished in Spain, (f) the 60 percent or three-fifths rule of disparate impact, (g) the burden of proof in the Spanish law, (h) the use of quotas and score adjustment for the categories of age, sex, and disabilities, and (i) issues about the legal consequences of violating the laws, the type of questions that must be excluded from selection procedures, and the statistical tools used to examine bias. It closes with an overview of recent laws affecting the use of artificial intelligence technologies and how the legal environment impacts the practice of industrial, work, and organizational psychology.

The use of tests and assessments in employment-related decision making has the potential to benefit organizations and individuals. However, their use is frequently criticized because of their adverse potential for bias and unfairness. The saliency of and attention to these issues may also vary from one country to another. Therefore, in addition to an overview of the handbook and its objectives, the present chapter presents a synthesis of the twenty-three chapters organized around four themes pertaining to bias and unfairness in employment testing, specifically, (1) historical and/or cultural issues, (2) legal and professional guidelines and issues, (3) psychometric issues, and (4) future- and forward-looking issues. Furthermore, the theory of cultural tightness-looseness is used in an exploratory manner to gain additional insights into patterns, or the lack thereof, across countries as reported in the chapters. The patterns of associations indicated that, relative to tight countries, loose countries were generally more attune to and have in place practices and regulations addressing employment testing bias and unfairness. Finally, some thoughts and suggestions for future research are discussed.

The chapter examines statutory entitlements to caring leave and flexible working. The statutory right to paid maternity leave on the birth of a child has been extended to paid paternity leave, shared parental leave and shared parental pay. There are also rights to paid neonatal care leave and parental bereavement leave, and rights to unpaid leave to deal with family care emergencies. More generally, all employees have the right to request flexible work arrangements involving changes in their hours and location of work. There is also protection from discrimination against part-time workers in comparison to full-time workers.

The employment relation is normally understood as a contract of employment. The employer, as usually the stronger bargaining partner, is free to determine the parties’ obligations through fixing the express terms of the contract. Regulation requires the employer to disclose those terms in writing. There is no legal control over unfair terms. However, collective agreements with a recognised trade union often fix the principal express terms of the contract.

Our central proposition is that developing and maintaining an effective and sustainable approach to performance and reward management requires careful consideration of two key factors: (1) the organisation’s strategic objectives; and (2) employees’ psychological needs, expectations and perceptions. To optimise their effectiveness, performance and reward policies and practices should be compatible with, and support, both of these factors. Misalignment between the two occurs all too readily and is likely to produce suboptimal outcomes for the organisation or its employees, or both. We examine the considerations and challenges involved in achieving strategic alignment and explore the possibilities and complexities of securing psychological engagement. Throughout the chapter, ‘reality check’ boxes encourage you to think through these two themes in practical terms, while the end-of-chapter case study invites you to apply the themes of strategic alignment and psychological engagement to our focal case study organisation, IT Angels.

Employment testing is a key tool for selection and placement in China’s public and private sectors. Rooted in a tradition of rigorous exams and shaped by modern workforce demands, such testing significantly influences access to job opportunities. Yet concerns about bias and fairness persist, driven by cultural norms, legal structures, and changes in the labor market. This chapter examines key issues related to bias and fairness in Chinese employment testing, exploring historical and cultural contexts, legal regulations, professional standards, and enforcement mechanisms. It also addresses measurement bias, challenges to diversity, and the growing influence of machine learning and advanced psychometrics in assessment design. By analyzing these dimensions, the chapter offers a comprehensive view of current challenges and highlights opportunities to improve equity in hiring practices. The discussion provides insights for employers, policymakers, and researchers navigating the complexities of employment testing in China.

The Korean term insamansa – “human resources are everything” –‘captures the deep value the nation places on personnel. Despite long-standing recognition of their importance, formal selection systems have emerged only recently. This chapter examines bias and fairness in Korean personnel selection through historical, legal, and societal lenses. Korea’s transformation from the labor-intensive industries of the 1960s–1980s to a technology-driven economy in the 2000s has reshaped perceptions of employment fairness. Current workplace protections primarily address sex and disability discrimination through laws such as the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family Balance Assistance Act. Although the Fair Hiring Procedure Act aims to reduce biased practices, challenges persist in ensuring the validity and fairness of selection methods. Moreover, the increasing use of artificial intelligence in hiring raises concerns over algorithmic bias. The chapter calls for evidence-based policies and robust statistical methods to improve validity and fairness in Korea’s evolving labor market.

Large corporations, trade unions and labour law now function within a global economy, creating the need to develop effective international labour standards addressed both to governments and corporations, which are now expected to take greater responsibility for labour standards throughout their global operations. This chapter examines the international legal framework for labour law within which domestic law operates, and the more recent initiatives focused specifically on corporations, as well as questions of exploitation associated with growing labour mobility, before concluding with a discussion about the prospects for global labour law.