Search results

The purpose of this paper is to present a novel modeling approach that combines a balanced systems engineering design model with a geospatial model to explore the complex interactions between natural hazards and engineered systems.

The approach taken in this work was to assemble a combined systems engineering design/geospatial model and interface it with a physics‐based hazard model to assess how to visualize the coupling of potential hazard effects from the physical domain into the functional/requirements domain.

It was demonstrated that it is possible to combine the two models and apply them to realistic hazard cases. A number of potential benefits are described and made possible by this approach including the generation of systems‐level damage assessments, the potential reduction of geo‐information data collection requirements, the incorporation of socio‐technical elements, the generation of functional templates, and the creation of a superior mitigation framework.

This approach offers a way to better understand natural hazard impacts on built systems, systemic effects of hazards, functional interdependencies between infrastructural elements, and a practical means to reduce geo‐information collection requirements.

The work is original in that it is the first time a balanced systems engineering design model has been made spatially aware and used to explore the impact of natural disasters on human systems. This work is valuable in that it directly addresses the shortcomings of spatial‐only approaches and could be used in data‐poor regions of the world.

A distinction must be drawn between a dismissal on the one hand, and on the other a repudiation of a contract of employment as a result of a breach of a fundamental term of that contract. When such a repudiation has been accepted by the innocent party then a termination of employment takes place. Such termination does not constitute dismissal (see London v. James Laidlaw & Sons Ltd (1974) IRLR 136 and Gannon v. J. C. Firth (1976) IRLR 415 EAT).

The concept of corporate social responsibility of the enterprise covers a vast territory! This paper proposes to limit the analysis and evaluation of this concept to three distinct aspects. The first will treat the comparatively new and evolving common law implied term in corporated into the contract of employment relating to the enterprise’s social responsibility of respect towards the employee. The second will analyse an other generically linked recent common law development in the field of the enterprise’s social responsibility of respect towards the employee, namely the implied over‐riding term. Thirdly, the novel and developing wider concept of corporate social responsibility will be addressed and assessed. Some concluding thoughts will follow.

February 22, 1971 Master and Servant — Vicarious liability — Apprentices required to travel to detached place of work — No obligation to use own transport or carry passengers — Mileage allowance paid by employer if own transport used — Passenger allowance payable for carriage of fellow apprentice — Apprentice injured while being driven to work as passenger of fellow apprentice — Whether employer liable for acts of apprentice while driving — Whether acting as employer's servant or agent — Insurance cover for passenger carried “by reason of… contract of employment” — Whether insurers liable.

November 25, 1968 Negligence — Safe system of work — Burden of proof — Railway — Appreciable daily risk known of danger to engine driver — Whether employer's liability depending on extent of risk and nature of necessary avoiding steps — Plaintiff adducing evidence of several feasible and reasonable possibilities for minimising risk — Whether onus on plaintiff to state specific possibility economically acceptable for adoption by employers — Whether employers negligent — Driver killed on musjudging precise position in relation to bridge — Whether contributory negligence.

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.

In the previous monograph, a discussion took place on what constitutes dismissal and when the termination of the contract of employment takes effect. These two aspects treat the first of the statutory qualifications necessary to enable the employee to exercise his right not to be unfairly dismissed, namely that he must first be dismissed.

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 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.

November 23, 1966 Negligence — Duty of care to whom? — Several contractors — Number of small sub‐contractors providing labour for work on site — No provision in contracts for necessary safety precautions — Main contractor retaining over‐riding control — Sub‐contractor's men working in close proximity to opening in roof — Fall of workman employed by other sub‐contractor through unfenced opening — Liability of all contractors — Apportionment.