Arbitration:
I: The issue in this case is that Ruben de la Garza was discharged from his employer Horton Automatics, because of a workplace-rule violation. Therefore, Ruben decided to appeal to arbitration.
R: Arbitration is the most widely used Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) technique. The parties bring their dispute in front of an arbitrator, that can be a third party, that tries to solve the disputes outside the courts. Most state have statutes under which arbitration clause will be enforced.
A: Arbitration happened in this case because the parties agreed through the collective bargaining agreement between Horton Automatics and the Industrial Division of the Communications Worker of America. The collective bargaining agreement limited
Richard files a suit against Dan for libel.
R: The law of defamation is supposed to protect people's reputations from actions that turn against the honor of another. State laws often define defamation in specific ways. Defamation law refers to the Common Law. If there is a defamation suit, most people focus on whether or not something is defamatory. When the statements are written, they are considered libel, or spoken defamation is called slander. But there is another, more important way to look at it: whether you have a right to say it or not. If you have the right you will have a legal defense.
A: Assuming that it was defamatory, Richard will have to prove the falsehood of the statements made by Dan in court. Defamation is a civil wrong, consisting of statements, oral or written, that injure someone else’s reputation. A defamatory statement that has been said or wrote by a person, can be sued by the person who has been defamed. In general, not every insult or false statement is accusable. Normally, a plaintiff suing for defamation will have to show that the statement was published, not privileged, that the statement was false and harmful to the person. General damages are presumed as a matter of law and are designed to compensate the plaintiff for dishonor in the eyes of the community and emotional distress. If Richard can prove that he has been turned down for a job because of Dan’s false statement, then he will win the lawsuit and will be
The issue before the court is whether Zagat Survey, LLC was guilty of disparagement or trade libel against Lucky Cheng’s Restaurant. I believe the court’s decision should be that Zagat Survey, LLC is not guilty of disparagement against Lucky Cheng’s Restaurant. According to our textbook, disparagement “is false statements about a competitor’s product, services, property or business reputation” (Cheeseman 98). Listed below are the reasons that I believe that Zagat Survey, LLC should be found innocent against the claim of disparagement.
Defamation is a tort action that has been widely recognized, nonetheless, it has only been within recent years, that the concept has been increasingly utilized in the employment context (Mcconnell, 2000, p. 78) . However, it is useful to first lay out the elements of the defamation tort as they occur in the employment setting. First, there must be a false, and defamatory statement. A statement is defamatory if it harms the employee's reputation or discourages others; such as potential employers, from wanting to have any contact with the employee. Second, the statement, be it written or oral, must be "published," that is, transmitted to a third party. Next, the defendant/employer must be responsible for the publication of the false and defamatory statement. Last, defamation damage to the plaintiff must occur; caused either by the statement itself, or by its actionable
It deals with perceptions of overall fairness (Blancero, Delcampo & Marron, 2010). Under Civil Procedure Rules, it is generally expected that the parties consider using ADR before beginning deciding on litigation (Ward, 2007). Overall, ADR parties have the freedom to choose who will decide the case, involves a non-hostile environment and disputes are confidential. Whereas, litigation does not have the option to decide who hears the case, the environment can be hostile and the files become public record, although it does offer due process (Benkin, 1994). There are three commonly accepted forms of ADR, negotiation, mediation and arbitration. Although, no method of ADR is equally exclusive to any issue, the benefits of ADR outweigh the
The court stated the appellant’s statements were false concerned issues that were important to the public’s attention. The statements were neither shown nor could be presumed to interfere with the appellant’s performance of his teaching duties or the school’s operation (Oyez, n.d.). In the matter of false statements, the Supreme Court looked back at New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). The school board was unable to prove the statements were malicious in nature.
Macintyre, S. (1987), Holt and the Establishment of Arbitration: An Australian Perspective, New Zealand Journal of Industrial Relations, 12(3): 151-159.
Issue – Did the employer violate the collective bargaining agreement by scheduling Saturday as a part of the basic workweek?
Sue contracts with Tom to deliver a quantity of computers to Sue’s Computer Store. They disagree over the amount, the delivery date, the price, and the quality. Sue files a suit against Tom in a state court. Their state requires that their dispute be submitted to mediation or nonbinding arbitration. If the dispute is not resolved, or if either party disagrees with the decision of the mediator or arbitrator, will a court hear the case? Explain. (See Alternative Dispute Resolution.)
The Defamation Act 2013 was passed to help regulation on defamation to deliver more effective protection for freedom of speech, while at the same time ensuring that people who have been defamed are able to protect their reputation. It is often difficult to know which personal remarks are proper and which run afoul of defamation law. Defamation is a broad word that covers every publication that damages someone's character. The basic essentials of a cause of act for defamation are: A untruthful and offensive statement regarding another; The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party; If the offensive situation is of public concern, fault amounting at least to carelessness on the share of the publisher; and Injury to the plaintiff. Slander and libel are both kinds of defamation, which refers to statements that hurt another person's name. While there are connections, each concentrate on different forms of defamation approaches. Normally, this will include not only the use of certain words to harm a reputation, but also activities such as finger signals or facial expressions in order to emphasize the fabrication that is being dispersed. If the statement is made in writing and published, the defamation is called "libel." Libel deals with printed matter, TV and radio broadcasts, movies and videotapes, social media sites, even blogs, emails, even drawings on a wall. An unpleasant statement is verbal; the statement is "slander." Slander explains defamation that you can overhear, not see. It is commonly spoken statements that distort someone's reputation. The government can't jail someone for making a defamatory statement since it does not break the law. Instead, defamation is considered to be an infringement of a person's ...
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Alternative Dispute Resolution. Retrieved May 16, 2014, from Cornell University Law School: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/alternative_dispute_resolution
During the history defamation has developed in two ways; slander and libel. The law leading slander focused on oral statements and libel on written ones. By the 1500 English printers had to be licensed and had to be linked to the government as by that time it was believed that written word had possibility to give a risk to political strength. However when the times passed the law progressed and these days freedom of expression is a foundation of democratic rights and freedoms therefore freedom of speech is necessary in making possible democracy to work and community involvement in decision-making.
ADR holds an extensive, easily influenced and diverging choice of processes for finding solutions for disputes which are personified by structured negotiation and consensus. It is regarded that arbitration is a familiar ADR technique, however, it is a more of a official adjudicative and adversary technique initially a confidential litigation process which has more commonality to litigation than the more original consensual processes which symbolise ADR. As simplified by Angyal (Alternative Dispute Resolution, 1987, p. 11):
An arbitrator’s function is usually to interpret the collective bargaining agreement between the parties, not to apply his or her standards of what is right in a given situation. The courts have sought to compel labour and management to a peaceful resolution of grievances through arbitration. The Supreme Court has given support to the arbitration process in a series of decisions, and judicial deferral to arbitration has become a basic tenet of national labour policy. Bibliography Byars, L. L. (1997). The.
The issue in this case is whether there is a legally binding contract between Roland and Bernie. The things that needs to be considered is whether there is an agreement between Roland and Bernie. If there is an offer and acceptance, then there is an existence of agreement. According to Section 2(a) of the Contract Act 1950, offer can be defines as when one person implies his/her willingness to another in order to acquire their consent. (Abdullah et al, 2011) The person who make the offer is known as ‘offeror’ or ‘promisor’. (Lee and Detta, 2009) An offer can be made in the method of orally, by conduct, writing or by the mixture of these forms. An offer must require an effective communication with offeree. The formation of contract when offeree accepted the proposal. (Dass, 2005)
Gies, T. P., & Bagley, A. W. (2013). Mandatory arbitration of employment disputes: What's new and what's next?. Employee Relations Law Journal, 39(3), 22-33.
During the court, P4P issued the Decision Letter (No.660/48/17-10/IX/PHK/4-1999) that the defendant was not allowed to dismiss their employees. The reason was because there was not agreement between the defendant and the 153 employees. The defendant refused that Decision Letter because that would cause the defendant should give the job to the employees back and should pay their wage.