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
Which means that employees have the right to quit a job at any time for any reason and the employer can also do the same by the employee. Generally, these types of situations are for employees that do not have contracts, are hourly wage employees and minimum wage. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents any employer from firing any employee based off their race,
Wallace v United Grain Growers Ltd., [1997] 3 SCR 701 was a case heard before the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the dismissal of Jack Wallace, appellant, from United Grain Growers Limited, respondent. The appellant, then 45, was approached by the respondent to leave his current job to begin employment with the respondent’s company. The appellant received assurances that if he performed his job as expected, his employment would be secured until retirement. The appellant found success with the respondent’s company, and he was consistently the top salesperson for each year of employment there. Despite this success, in 1986 he was dismissed without cause or explanation. The respondent issued a statement of claim for wrongful dismissal. The
History shows that there has been conflict of power within the workforce between union and management. This essay will discuss if management should have the right to determine whether a union should operate within their workplace. It is necessary first to discuss the roles of unions and management in the workplace and discuss both points of view on the power distribution between unions and management in the workplace.
...dges had heard the case and agreed with the dissenting opinions. Therefore, I believe with others that when it comes to layoffs and affirmative action plans, businesses are best to address affirmative action plans with hiring goals and establish other means for determining layoffs such as performance ratings or skills/qualifications.
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.
Ian Smith and Aaron Bake, Smith and Wood’s Employment Law (10th edn Oxford University Press, Oxford 2010) 80
In dealing with a person’s livelihood, and often, sense of self, it is of no surprise that ethical issues regarding employment practices are of great concern. The issues of employment at will and due process contracts in the workplace are among the most widely contentious in the realm of employment. Employment at will is the doctrine that employment may be ended, by either party, for good, bad or no cause at all.1 Due process, on the other hand, is the employment practice in which a person may appeal a decision as a means of receiving an explanation and the opportunity to argue against it.2 Employment at will is the standard in the majority of private corporations today and is argued for relentlessly by freedom of contract enthusiasts, however, it is becoming ever more apparent that employment at will contracts reflect the old corporate maxim where the single bottom line, profit, is accented and the well being of other stakeholders, in this case the employee, are of little or no influence. Due process should be accepted as the prevalent employment system as it shelters employees from the hostile actions of the more powerful employer, provides a stable, bilateral contract between both parties and portrays the growing ethical concerns of society.
The Canadian employment law system consists of three regimes: common law, employment regulation, and collective bargaining agreement (CBA). From these regimes, the common law of employment is one that was created by Judges over centuries in order to regulate the employer-employee relationship. Judges, from lower level to upper level courts have used employment contracts and torts, two tools available to them under the common law system to aid in decision-making with respect to employment law cases. The decisions of which have been recorded and used as a precedent in future employment law cases of the same nature. When considering the common law of employment from the three listed regimes, I relate to speaker two while disagreeing with speaker one. Although, the common law of employment has historically excluded protections covered by the employment legislation and CBA, which has made it appear to favor the economic interests of employers more than employees, it has not completely put employees at a disadvantage because, it has protected them and their interests in other significant a...
Increasing job insecurity and excessive managerial prerogative to “fire at will” were regarded as the wo main problems with WorkChoices. The Fair Work Act introduced the notion of a “ fair dismissal” system that sets out the steps that an employer should go through before dismissing an employee.
The distinction between an unfair prejudice petition and a statutory derivative action has always been in the nature of remedy sought by the claimant. This is arguably the point where a distinction is drawn as to whether a statutory derivative action or an unfair prejudice petition should be pursued. A d...
...le who are in similar scenarios as Mr. Macaura, to be aware of their legal rights within a company and what their insurable interest would be. To be aware of what being a sole shareholder of a corporation entails and what would happen legally if anything went wrong. This case is a good example of how the law sees corporations and those who own and manage it, as well as legally what needs to be decided even if it may come across as “not fair”. The law generally does not operate under what is “fair” but instead under what is justified. Its true that the law was not “fair” towards Mr. Macaura, and in the end he was the one who suffered, however legally the decision was just and right.
The role of the government on industrial relations is very important as it sets the legal framework that industrial relations operates in. Appropriate industrial relations legislation should recognize the requirements of both employers and employee’s. Both the employee and the employer want to profit from each other but are also reliant on each other. This means that the equal bargaining power of employers and workers must be recognized (Peetz, David. 2006). Appropriate industrial relations laws should address any imbalance of power and give both groups an equal degree of control. Appropriate industrial relations should not only allow a mixture of both collective and individual bargaining but also facilitate employee participation in day to day workplace decisions. After all it’s the structure and framework of the employment relationship, which is governed by legislation that leads to good Industrial Relations.
Dunlop(1958) argues that in the system of industrial relations, there are 3 major components in the system. There are the actors, the context and the common ideology. The actors consist of the employers and their organizations and employees and, if present, the groups that represent them and the state or government agencies. The second major component, the context, is the situation or environment that influences any decision or activity, this is usually technology, market constraints or distribution of power in the wider society. The common ideology, under which the purpose of this essay falls, can be seen as a binding idea or theory which the actors share for the purpose of stability in the system. Under the common ideology component, there are various conflicting theories or frames of reference.
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.