Search results

In an article entitled “Collective Bargaining — a theoretical analysis” A. Flanders defined collective bargaining as an “…institution for the joint regulation of labour management and labour markets.” The collective agreement, the result of the collective bargain, is normally an uninforceable contract and is a very different legal notion from that of the contract of employment. The function of the collective agreement is to regulate relations between the collective parties, that is between the employer's association or an individual employer, and a union or unions. Such relations are known as relations of a collective nature. They could include procedure agreements between the collective parties in relation to no‐strikes or other industrial action before the disputes procedure has been exhausted; matters to do with the structure of negotiations between the parties; the constitution of the bodies set up for collective bargaining purposes; procedures on re‐ negotiation of the collective agreement; and so on. The collective agreement has however another function, the individual function, which regulates relations between employer and employee. Terms and conditions of employment are usually regulated by the collective agreement. Thus pay scales, hours of work, holidays, wages during illness, overtime work, any matters relating to training, re‐training, apprenticeship, are some from among the numerous subjects to be found in conditions of employment. Procedures which relate to the individual employee, such as grievance and disciplinary procedures, may equally feature as part of the terms and conditions of employment which emanate from the collective agreement. Indeed statute requires that the employer gives his employee particulars of this latter's major terms and conditions of employment.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the Supreme Court’s decision in Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 138 S.Ct. 2044 (June 21, 2018).

The approach of this paper is to discuss the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) use of Administrative Law Judges (“ALJs”), and the litigation challenging the appointment of those ALJs, culminating in the Supreme Court’s decision in Lucia.

In Lucia, the Court held that SEC ALJs are “officers of the United States,” and thus subject to the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, which limits the power to appoint “officers” to the President, “Courts of Law” or “Heads of Departments.” Because the ALJ who presided over Lucia’s administrative proceeding was not appointed by the SEC itself, the Court held that the ALJ’s appointment was unconstitutional and ordered the SEC to provide Lucia with a new hearing in front of a new (constitutionally appointed) ALJ.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Lucia provides defense counsel with new ammunition to challenge SEC administrative proceedings. It will likely have a significant effect on many pending and already-concluded SEC administrative proceedings but also leaves open a number of important questions for further litigation.

This paper provides expert analysis and guidance from experienced securities litigators.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is increasingly being adopted on a global scale. However, it is evident that the utilisation and implementation of CSR varies in differing contextual settings. The purpose of this chapter is to explore the concept of CSR in the Indian context.

The development of CSR in India is understood through an examination of historical and spiritual underpinnings. Literature pertinent to this is used to form a picture of contemporary practice. Interview data complements this understanding and enables the development of snapshots outlining how CSR has been used.

Our chapter indicates that though CSR is utilised in the Indian context and has been an important part of societal structure, the positive benefits that could be gained are still not recognised to their fullest. It is essential that the institutionalisation of CSR is supported by partnerships between government, business and non-governmental organisations.

This review aids our understanding of how CSR has evolved and been used in India. It highlights the complexity of CSR in differing contextual settings.

The chapter describes CSR in an underexplored research setting.

This paper aims to provide an analysis of securities class action filings in 2017 along with related trends over time and a comprehensive current view of the securities class action landscape.

The paper details 2017 securities class actions and related trends by measures including the number and size of filings; market capitalization losses; litigation likelihood for US versus non-US exchange-listed companies; status and outcomes of filings (settled, dismissed, continuing); core versus merger and acquisition filings; individual versus institutional investors as lead plaintiffs; and concentration of class action activity by industry sector, stock exchange and court circuit.

The number of federal securities class action lawsuits filed in 2017 reached a record high for the second straight year. The jump was spurred by a sharp increase in lawsuits targeting mergers and acquisitions. The 412 securities class action filings in 2017 represented a more than 50 per cent increase from the previous record of 271 filings in 2016.

This paper details analysis by legal and industry experts.

To explain the background, controversy and possible future developments related to the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) increased use of administrative proceedings (APs), rather than court actions, in bringing enforcement matters.

Discusses the SEC’s historic forum selection process, the home court advantage APs may give to the SEC, changes the SEC has proposed to the Rules of Practice governing APs, arguments challenging the constitutionality of APs, a jurisdictional hurdle faced by respondents challenging APs before federal courts, and possible future developments.

Critics consider the SEC’s expanded use of APs to be procedurally biased, unconstitutional, and unfairly advantageous to the SEC. In response, the SEC has offered guidance explaining its forum selection process, proposed procedural changes, and its belief that its systems are fair.

Practical guidance from experienced financial services and securities litigation lawyers.

This chapter summarises the analysis of the preceding chapters. Whilst different countries use different models for their audit, some continuities do emerge. The audit explosion has led to the advance of both financial and performance audits. Inspection however remains an infrequent feature of the audit landscape. Many countries have a localised system of local audit in which the role and influence of audit is variable. Furthermore, the audit of local government lacks a clear democratic role at the moment.

The purpose of this chapter is to analyze the profile of public administration concerning its capacity to authoritatively assign values to a society, and in particular to the political system in Mexico. Many of the recent transformations in the Mexican public administration have occurred in a context in which a democratic opening of the political system has been the main trait of public life. This is the main light under which these changes in Mexico's federal public administration in recent years should be read.

The article explores the structural features of both the government and the federal public administration in Mexico. In particular, the transformation of the administrative apparatus not only in quantitative but also in qualitative terms is explained as a result of a change in the balance between the public and private sectors in recent decades, as well as the experience of the Professional Career Service and its impact on public officials in Mexico. We examine the links of the bureaucracy with political parties and civil society, as well as the political relationships within the public administration itself. We also describe accountability within the federal public administration. We explore recent reform and change processes in Mexico's administrative apparatus. Finally, some considerations are given to the opportunities and challenges facing the contemporary Mexican public administration as a result of having huge problems and at the same time partial solutions.

Just what is the Conservative Government's industrial relations policy? There are usually two different sets of answers given by industrial relations commentators to this question, determined by their stance on the Government's general policies. The first line of argument is that the question itself is a contradiction in terms: the Government, by definition of its laissez‐faire economic philosophy, has no specific policy towards industrial relations. The content of national and locally negotiated contracts, in both the private and, increasingly, the public sector, must be the product of what the market can afford, and of a bargaining process that is unfettered by interference from external agencies. The free play of market forces must be the primary determinant of wage and price levels. Thus Margaret Thatcher and Arthur Scargill have at least one thing in common, that is, a view of free collective bargaining in which wages and prices are determined by the daily trial of strength between capital and labour. Indeed, the Government's employment legislation was placed on the statute book, so they tell us, not to strengthen the hand of the employer at the expense of labour, but because the state had been used by previous governments, Labour and Conservative alike, for the benefit of trade union growth, and not in its more traditional role as a guarantor of individual freedom and private property. Hence the Government must stand aloof from disputes like the recent miners' strike.