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.

The contribution of multinational enterprises to wealth creation is evident, but there is much discussion on whether the consequent power is, or ought to be, used responsibly for social and economic ends. In employment relations, although international standards have long been established, current issues include the use of child labour, safety, differential pay, hiring policies and conditions, especially towards locals. This paper attempts to identify the ethical, as opposed to prudential or legal, dimensions of the issues, especially as illustrated in case studies, and to estimate the prospects for agreed improvement. The paper suggests that technical management skills, ethical awareness and the propagation of international standards together are not enough to reduce the contentiousness of the various practices. Inclusion of consumers (the ultimate paymasters) tends to be rudimentary. Discussions of other relevant persons in the “stakeholder” debate have yielded little practical application. Economic and business pluralism could be helpful.

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:

There has recently been an increased interest in business ethics worldwide. With the help of case studies, aspects of business ethics are discussed: its realistic use in management and how it can help to raise standards of performance and conduct in the workplace.

February 27, 1973 Master and Servant — Redundancy — Dismissal for redundancy — Shop manageress dismissed for inefficiency — Managerial work performed by owner and part time assistants — Whether requirements of business for managerial work diminished — Whether redundancy — Redundancy Payments Act, 1965 (c.62), s.9 (2)(b).

May 22, 1973 Industrial Relations — Unfair dismissal — Jurisdiction — Employee dismissed — Four employees at termination of employment — Three employed for more than 13 weeks — Fourth employed for less than 13 weeks — Whether less than four employees “who” had been continuously employed — Industrial Relations Act, 1971(c.72), s.27( l )(a).

The purpose of this monograph is to examine the various ways in which the contract of employment may be terminated at common law other than by the common law of wrongful dismissal or statutory unfair dismissal and redundancy. Wrongful dismissal has already been discussed in another monograph and unfair dismissal and redundancy will feature in a subsequent one.

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.

October 25, 1972 Master and Servant — Redundancy — “Offer of suitable employment” — Statement by shop assistant not interested in offer of future employment — No offer made — Whether employee estopped from alleging no offer made — Onus of proof — Redundancy Payments Act, 1965 (c.62) s.2(3), (4).

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).