Search results

June 6,1973 Vicarious liability — Master and servant — Course of employment — Bus conductor driving bus — Bus blocking path of conductor's and plaintiff driver's bus — Conductor told by plaintiff to get engineer to move bus — Conductor attempting to move bus himself — Not knowing how to drive bus — Driver injured by conductor's negligent manoeuvre — Express prohibition in bus company's rules against conductors driving buses — Clear separation of duties of drivers and conductors — General duty of conductors to co‐operate with drivers in getting buses into service — Whether bus company vicariously liable for conductor's action — Whether within scope of employment.

April 17, 1973 Industrial Relations — “Industrial dispute” — New definition not covering dispute between workmen and workmen — Lighterman deliberately allowing trade union membership to lapse — Union endorsing fellow workers' refusal to work with lapsed member — Employers warned of withdrawal of all labour if non‐unionist kept in employment — Employers acquiescing in union policy by sending non‐unionist off work on full pay — Whether warnings to employers “in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute” where no dispute between employers and workers — Whether employers entitled to bring proceedings in tort in High Court if no industrial dispute giving immunity to alleged unlawful threats by union — Whether interlocutory injunction before trial of action appropriate on balance of convenience — Industrial Relations Act, 1971 (c.72), ss. 5(2), 33(3), 132(1), 167(1).

November 5, 1971 Factory — Eyes — Protection — Provision of goggles or effective screens — “Suitable” — Grinding cast iron components with carborundum wheel—Small particles flying off — Evidence of accident history — Duty of employers — Factories Act, 1961 (9 & 10 Eliz. II, c. 34), s. 65 — Protection of Eyes Regulations, 1938 (S.R.. & O.1938, No. 654).

Proposes to treat social law contracts by covering the two most important aspects of the contract of employment, and also the collective agreement. Covers the contract of employment in full with all the integral laws explained as required, including its characteristics, written particulars, sources or regulations, with regard to employers, are also covered. Lengthy coverage of the collective agreement is also included, showing legal as well as moral (!) requirements, also included are cases in law that are covered in depth.

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.

October 25, 1973 Damages — Remoteness — Negligence — Master and servant — Injury to employee's leg caused by employer's admitted negligence — Subsequent medical treatment causing encephalitis — Injection of anti‐tetanus serum — Negligent method of injection not causative of illness — Plaintiff with allergy to serum used — Illness an unforeseeable consequence of foreseeable medical treatment — Whether employer liable.

May 7, 1974 Iron and Steel — Reorganization — Resettlement compensation — Report to the Minister recommending reorganization — Industry reorganized consequent on report — Recession in industry — Closure of mills — Employees suffering loss of employment — Whether loss of employment “in consequence of a relevant event” — Whether employees entitled to resettlement compensation — Iron and Steel (Compensation to Employees) Regulations, 1968 (S.I. 1968, No. 1170).

October 25, 1971 Damages — Personal injuries — Assessment — Skilled worker — Hand injury permanently preventing skilled work — Liability admitted by employers — Loss of amenities and future earning power — Appropriate awards.

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.