The original Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter ‘ID Act, 1947’) did not encompass provisions for lay-off compensation. The Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1953 inserted Sec. 25 A to Sec. 25 J of the current Chapter VA and the second amendment the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1976 incorporated Chapter VB into the ID Act, 1947 to overcome the difficulties of not having a uniform mechanism to decide the quantum of compensation. The scope of this essay is to examine and determine whether lay-off is a statutory right under the ID Act, 1947. Whether the ID Act, 1947 confers an inherent common law right to the employer to lay-off his employees was the point of contention in two Supreme Court (hereinafter ‘SC’) cases. The author will analyse both the cases; Dewan Tea Estate v. Their Management and Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company of India Ltd. v. The Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company and critically adjudge their arguments to reach a conclusion. ANALYSIS OF WORKMEN OF DEWAN TEA ESTATE V. THEIR MANAGEMENT. The respondents in this case contend that the employers have an inherent right to lay-off their employees in accordance with the power conferred by Sec. 25 (C) . The rationale behind arguing this was that if it succeeds, then only the compensation needs to be paid by the employer rather than paying the full back wages. The Tribunal held that the lay-off was justified on two grounds. The reason of the lay-off came directly under the relevant Standing Order (hereinafter ‘SO’) and hence the source of power to lay-off was justified. The Tribunal held that even if the lay-off is not justified by the SO, the employer had a common law right to declare lay-off, as recognized by Sec. 25(C) of ID Act, 194... ... middle of paper ... ...d provision H.H. Prince Azam Jha Bahadur v. Expenditure Tax Officer, Hyderabad [1972] AIR 2324 (SC); “The following guidelines in Canada as to when to use definitions in Acts appear to be fairly universal: Definitions should only be used sparingly and only for the following purposes- a) to establish that a term is not being used in its usual meaning but in several meanings; b) to avoid excessive repetition, c) to allow the use of an abbreviation; d) to signal the use of unusual or novel term.” In this regard the author argues that definition is not a means of conferring a right or a power to the employer to lay-off his employees. Ibid. Workmen v. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co of India (P) Ltd (n 5). MA Veiyra v. CP Fernandez [1956] 1 LLJ 547 (Bom). Workmen v. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co of India (P) Ltd (n 12). Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Hamblett, M. (2004, August 26). 2nd Circuit: Impact of Employer Acts Grounds for Suit: Court rules on disparate impact theory of recovery. New York Law Journal. Retrieved April 4, 2005 from http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180422885
In 1980, a precedent was set in a Michigan court case involving a man named Charles Toussaint who was suing his employer, BlueCross Blue Shield, for wrongful termination based on the guidelines set in the employee manual (Alfred and Bertsche 33). The manual stated that employees would only be terminated for just cause, and the court decided that Blue Cross had violated the agreements in the employee manual (34). The court also ruled that even with Blue Cross’s efforts to provide a document that “issued non-binding guidelines” the employee manual was a contract and Toussiant was wrongfully terminated (34). After the precedent set by this case many employers and employees for that matter were reviewing their employee manuals for the type of ambiguous language that could allow them to get sued or sue. Consequently, a slew of wrongful termination lawsuits followed this one, which is why it is now important for employers to draft their manuals with experienced legal staff. Even with the best legal team and the perfect wording there is still no definite assurance that an employer will be completely protected from such lawsuits, but taking these preventive measures helps in the long run.
David Brody argues that the rise of contractual or collective bargaining relationships during the post WWII era formalized the relationship between employers and unions, but simultaneously began to put a break on shop floor activism. Explain Brody’s argument and, where relevant, incorporate Weber’s theory of bureaucracy.
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
Healey Kaye. (1995), Industrial Relations, Issues for the nineties, Volume 45. The Spinney Press, Australia.
...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.
Many employers have been baffled as they attempt to sort through the overlapping obligations created when a sick or injured worker's medical condition triggers the different rights and responsibilities under new federal laws. If businesses want to avoid costly lawsuits from disgruntled employees it is essential to understand their responsibilities under the laws. Employers must make a tw...
This essay will examine the main cause of the demise of the derivative claim which is the possibility of pursuing a corporate relief and even costs via an unfair prejudice petition, a relief and order that was initially only available via derivative action. Further this essay will discuss as to how the boundaries between the statutory derivative action and the unfair prejudice should be drawn and what restrictions should be added to the unfair prejudice remedy under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 so that the significance of the statutory derivative action can be reinstated.
United States of America. National Employment Law Project. National Employment Law Project. N.p., Jan. 2011. Web. 18 May 2014.
If you are like the majority of managers operating within labor contracts then you can relate to the frustration that accompanies the labor grievance process. For the most part, grievance policies are set to be mediating faucets that allow for a clarification or even a compromise between employer and employees. Yet, what takes place absent a clear understanding of the true purpose of the grievance process may be a whirlwind that brings about much aggravation and frustration between both parties. What follows are three effective methods in ensuring that your company’s approach in dealing with grievances is not distorted or manipulated.
Labour and Employment Law. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing Company.
Section 188 of the Act (Labour Relations Act) stipulates that a dismissal is unfair if the employer fails to prove that the reason for the dismissal is a fair reason based on the misconduct or incapacity of the employee, or is based on the employer's operational requirements, and that the dismissal was effected in accordance with a fair procedure. Persons or Employers considering whether or not the reason for dismissal is of fair reason is in accordance with fair procedure must take into account any relevant Code of Good Practice issued in terms of Schedule 8 of the Act – as discussed here-in:
In this case, Saito Sdn. Bhd. unilaterally terminated the benefits enjoyed by Roslan. When Roslan believes that her employer is accused of breaching an implied term of the employee’s contract of the employment as her employer had removed the benefits from her and generally it clear that the employee is no longer important. Therefore, constructive dismissal occurred. In this situation, Roslan was advised that make a formal complaint to her employer requesting that the problem be rectified. For instance, Roslan should write a formal letter to her employer asking for the reinstating the previously benefits. If no satisfactory rectification is made, the employee can walk off the job. The law of constructive dismissal requires the employee to leave in a timely manner. She must not delay too long.
The defendant is an Airlines Company that had 900 employees. The economic crisis followed with monetary crisis gave bad effects to the defendant. They should decrease the number of their airplanes form 9 to 2 airplanes. They also had to do the efficiency on their employees to 700. On the efficiency process, there was an agreement between the defendant and employees representation on October 30 1998. The agreement stated that they would bring Independent Public Accountant to analyze company financial condition. During the process, all side should work on their duty. The Defendant should pay employees’ wage. The agreement was not guarantee that didn’t mean the dispute process was over, but the negotiation still moved on. During the process, there was another agreement between the defendant and several employees. They agreed the finish the disputed process and the employees would get separation pay. Meanwhile, other employees, who were 153 people didn’t agree with that agreement. Because they didn’t agree each other, so the employees gave the case to the “Panitia Penyelesaian Perselisihan Perburuhan Pusat (P4P)”.
The theory holds work to be governed by a wide range of formal and informal rules and regulations, which cover everything from recruitment, holidays, performance, wages, hours, and a myriad of other details of employment. It asserts that these rules are what industrial actors try to determine, that their establishment is influenced by the wider environmental context in which the actors operate, and that the actors themselves share an interest in maintaining the processes of negotiation and conflict resolution. On the back of these assertions four elements are held to make up the system of industrial relations rule-making. The first is industrial actors, which consists of employers and their representatives (i.e., employer associations), employees and their representatives (i.e., trade unions), and external agencies with an interest in industrial relations (i.e., government departments and labour courts). The second is the environmental context, which