This essay looks at the statutory duty of good faith and how it has developed since its introduction in the form of section 4 of the Employment Relations Act 2000. When the Employment Relations Act 2000 was introduced a statutory duty of good faith was created by s 4(1). The duty requires parties to an employment relationship to deal with each other in good faith and states that they must not mislead or deceive one another. The wording of the good faith duty is purposefully based on provisions from the Fair Trading Act 1986 so that existing precedents could apply to the new provision. This obligation has been described as “the cornerstone of the legislative framework”. The duty was introduced as there was recognition that successful employment relationships are built on good faith behaviour. …show more content…
Unhappy with this judicial approach Parliament amended the Act through the Employment Relations Amendment Act (No 2) 2004. Section 3(a)(i) clarifies that there is a legislative requirement for good faith behaviour in addition to the implied mutual obligations of trust and confidence. This is reiterated by s 4(1A)(a) which states the good faith duty is “wider in scope than the mutual obligations of trust and confidence”. This wider scope requires parties to be active and constructive in maintaining a productive employment relationship and among other things should be responsive and communicative towards each other. The increased scope also provides that if a decision will adversely affect an employee they must be given access to information relevant to the reasons for the
This decision was made in good faith and cannot be conspicuously construed to have self-interests veiled in them. Further, the executive directors made an informed decision to refrain from passing this information to the board and they did believe that this would be in the best interests of the company as disclosure would have brought an end to the company’s existence much before the actual downfall. Thus this judgment met all the requisites prescribed under the provisions of Section 180 (2) of the Corporations Act, 2001 (Rawhouser, Cummings and Crane 2015). This case was the first to comprehensively lay down the business judgment defense and apply it to the facts and circumstances of a case. This defense would negate the apparent breach of the duties of the directors as prescribed by the statute and under common
Bennett-Alexander, Dawn D. & Hartman, Laura P. (2001). Employment Law for Business (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Primis Custom Publishing. Downloaded February 4, 2008 from the data base of http://www.eeoc.gov
... but there must also be some indication in the legislation, its purpose and context showing this intention. The courts’ duty is to ensure that the legislative target is hit and not merely to record that it has been missed, but it must also be careful not to trespass on the separation of powers. If a gap is disclosed in the legislation, the remedy lies in amending the Act.
The case Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd[1] confirms the long held doctrine that employers are vicariously liable for the negligence of their employees during the course of their employment. In comparison to cases such as Humberstone v Northern Timber Mills[2] and Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd[3], which appear to contribute to the development of the application of common law to evolving social conditions, the Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd case may be considered as taking a step back in affirming the traditional notion of ‘control’ when determining the nature of employment relationships. The following will critically analyse the ratio and the legal and commercial implications prevalent in this case.
The purpose of this paper is to analyze a specific, hypothetical employment situation encountered and to include the information regarding employment conflicts, questions, grievances, lawsuits, etc., in terms of how the situation was handled or resolved. Employment conflicts are a constant issue everyday in any organization; it is how you handle them both legally and professionally that counts.
Ferguson, J. (1997), Casual Employment Contracts: Continuing Confusion when Protection and Free Market Clash, New Zealand Journal of Industrial Relations, 22(1): 123-142
Moran, J. J. (2008). Employment law: New challenges in the business environment. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
The law of contract in many legal systems requires that parties should act in good faith. English law refuses to impose such a general doctrine of good faith in the field of contract law. However, despite not recognizing the principle, English contract law is still influenced by notions of good faith. As Lord Bingham affirmed, the law has developed numerous piecemeal solutions in response to problems of unfairness. This essay will seek to examine the current and future state of good faith in English contract law.
...e Bargaining, Managerial Prerogative and the Protection of Workers Rights: An Argument on the Role of the Law and Regulatory Strategy in Australia under the Workplace Act 1996 (Cth). Retrieved on April 9, 2013, from http://www.google.co.ke/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.unimelb.edu.au%2FE8812500-7599-11E2-84E10050568D0140&ei=t0RkUdT0K62V7Ab48IC4Bw&usg=AFQjCNEfV17R8n5eNatsPXKQRxB9bqvUig&bvm=bv.44990110,d.ZGU.
Bennett, Alexander, Hartman (2003), Employment Law for Business, Fourth Edition I., The Regulation of the Employment Relationship, The McGraw-Hill Companies.
...eputation of honesty, quality, and integrity. It is also each employee’s responsibility to report to the company any situation where the standards or the laws are being violated.
The Unfair Dismissals Act 1977-2007 was set up to give clear guidelines on how an employer’s decision to dismiss an employee may be contested by an independent body. The main purpose of this Act is to shield employees from unfair dismissals. It also provides for an adjudication system and a redress system to those employees whose dismissals have been found to be unfair.
...‘Consideration: Practical benefit and the Emperor’s new clothes’ in Beatson and Friedmann (eds). Good Faith and Fault in Contract Law (Oxford University Press, 1995);
Managers have a degree of choice in how they deal with their employees. (Purcell, 1987) Some may see them as a commodity while others may see them as an important and valuable resource needing to be developed. (Purcell, 1987) Managerial prerogative is defined by Bray, Waring and Cooper (2011: pg 332) as “those areas of decision-making within an organization over which managers claim to have an unfettered right to decide as they see fit.” It is important to define managerial prerogative so that we can establish whether the legislation has increased or diminished it. Defining managerial prerogative is also important as we look at the different managerial styles and strategies and observe if they play any role in increasing or minimizing managerial prerogative. Managers will always have some degree of control over their employees because most of the day to day tasks in the workplace such as rules and procedures of the workplace, tasks, and which employee performs which tasks are decisions made by the manager without consultation with employees and unions. (Bray, Waring and Cooper, 2011) The laws and regulations surrounding managerial prerogative have only seemed to rule in favour of employers being the sole decision makers in an organisation and decrease the amount of bargaining power unions and employees have towards pay and conditions. (Bray and Waring, 2006)