Search results

Knight's Industrial Law Reports goes into a new style and format as Managerial Law This issue of KILR is restyled Managerial Law and it now appears on a continuous updating basis rather than as a monthly routine affair.

In order to succeed in an action under the Equal Pay Act 1970, should the woman and the man be employed by the same employer on like work at the same time or would the woman still be covered by the Act if she were employed on like work in succession to the man? This is the question which had to be solved in Macarthys Ltd v. Smith. Unfortunately it was not. Their Lordships interpreted the relevant section in different ways and since Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome was also subject to different interpretations, the case has been referred to the European Court of Justice.

In this essay it is proposed first to draw the important distinction which exists in practice between the collective and procedure agreements and explain briefly the respective functions of each of these. An examination will then follow of the current legal status of the collective agreement in Great Britain where a discussion and analysis of various aspects of legal non‐enforceability will take place.

The Equal Pay Act 1970 (which came into operation on 29 December 1975) provides for an “equality clause” to be written into all contracts of employment. S.1(2) (a) of the 1970 Act (which has been amended by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975) provides:

Civil wrongdoings with consequent financial and other loss or damage to employers, employees and third parties may result in the course of various trade union activities. These day to day trade union activities take a variety of forms. The most common ones are inducement of breach of contract, conspiracy, trespass, nuisance, and intimidation. Each of these activities constitutes a tort which, unless the statutory immunities apply, would normally give rise at common law to an action for damages or, as is more frequent, enable the aggrieved party to obtain an injunction.

Since their creation through the Industrial Training Act 1964 to hear appeals against levies, the jurisdiction of industrial tribunals has grown considerably. One aspect of this jurisdiction, unfair dismissal, is examined here. Basic principles related to the law of unfair dismissal are examined. The practice and procedure of an industrial tribunal solely in connection with unfair dismissal cases are examined in greater detail. A case study is used to illustrate the important aspects of procedure. Appendices give relevant forms and extracts from the appropriate Code of Practice.

Examines the situation in the UK in some detail with regard to three aspects of the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights of the European Union. Looks at the aims, together with an analysis and appraisal. Considers, first, information and consultation rights with regards to the transfer of undertakings and redundancies, followd by the right to collective action and, lastly, protection in the event of unjustifiable dismissal. Presents case law throughout as examples. Concludes that the UK has attempted to prevent social and economic rights for workers from being included in the final charter despite fierce opposition. Compares this view together with the UK suspicion of Europe against the views of the other member states.

Providing workers with rights to take strike and other forms of industrial action is an issue of fundamental concern for trade unionists and everyone involved in industrial relations. Naturally, debate focuses on what rights trade unions and their members should have and what limits (if any) should be imposed. The form in which such rights are provided is seen often, at most, as a matter of secondary importance. In Britain, workers have not been given positive rights to strike. Instead, legislation has provided unions and their members with immunities from the legal liabilities which the organisation of industrial action involves, as a result of developments in the law as made by the judges. The history of the system of immunities is examined, and it is contended that there are practical and, in particular, ideological advantages to trade unionists in adopting a system of positive rights.

In a previous monograph a discussion took place on stages one and part of stage two of the three stage process in an unfair dismissal action, namely the employee having to show that he has been dismissed (stage one), and some of the reasons for dismissal which fall within the statutory categories, namely the employee's capability and qualifications; misconduct and redundancy (part of stage two). In this monograph an analysis is proposed on the two remaining reasons, these being the contravention of a duty imposed by an enactment and some other substantial reason. There will then follow a discussion on the test of fairness as constituting the third of the three stage process and on the remedies available when the tribunal finds that the employee has been unfairly dismissed.

Since 1970 the British industrial relations system has been injected with an unprecedented volume of law relating to employment. We have had the Equal Pay Act, 1970 and Sex Discrimination Act, 1975 which have spawned an Equal Opportunities Commission; the Industrial Relations Act, 1971 was passed and subsequently repealed by the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act, 1974 (TULRA); the provisions of this latter act have been further buttressed by the Employment Protection Act, 1975 (EPA); dealing with a very much neglected area of industrial relations we have had the Health and Safety at Work Act, 1974; finally the Bullock Commission which was set up to inquire into the way worker directors could increase employee participation in industrial affairs reported to the Minister in February, 1977. The government have promised legislation on ‘industrial democracy’ sometime in 1977 or 1978.