Search results

The Howard Shuttering Contractors case throws considerable light on the importance which the tribunals attach to warnings before dismissing an employee. In this case the tribunal took great pains to interpret the intention of the parties to the different site agreements, and it came to the conclusion that the agreed procedure was not followed. One other matter, which must be particularly noted by employers, is that where a final warning is required, this final warning must be “a warning”, and not the actual dismissal. So that where, for example, three warnings are to be given, the third must be a “warning”. It is after the employee has misconducted himself thereafter that the employer may dismiss.

July 6,1971 Building — Construction Regulations — “Working place” — Guard‐rails to be erected where workmen liable to fall more than six feet six inches — Partly demolished building — Floorboards removed to make four—feet—wide passageways with gap in between — Whether passageways a “working place” — Whether “impracticable” to erect guard‐rails — Construction (Working Places) Regulations, 1966 (S.I. 1966, No. 94), regs. 28(1), 38(1).

IN this issue we conclude our symposium on Modern Library Planning, and although it is not as complete as we could wish, it has certainly proved to be one of the most interesting subjects we have been able to deal with in recent years. We regret that lack of space has prevented us from including some interesting details about new libraries, and that we have laid ourselves open to the criticism of over‐crowding. We hope, however, that we shall be able, from time to time, to add further material as the occasion warrants. We had hoped to obtain a description of the Central Library Extension of the Hull Public Libraries, but this has, unfortunately, proved impossible. Lancashire County Library, too, is constructing four new branch libraries, an account of which we should have liked to include. Plymouth may be mentioned as still another library of which the material was not ready in time for our symposium. Also, we are sorry to have had to omit some of the illustrations which librarians have been kind enough to offer us for reproduction. In spite of these omissions, however, we have been able to gather together much that is new and interesting in modern planning, and one of the points that is well worth notice is the willingness of librarians to experiment in new ideas, even if conservatively.

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.

Phillips, J. has drawn the distinction between wrongful dismissal at common law and unfair dismissal under statute. He points out the considerable difference which exists between the position at common law and the position under statute. “The common law” he says “is concerned merely with the contractual relationship between the parties, whereas a complaint of unfair dismissal…is concerned with the statutory right of an employee not to be unfairly dismissed.” There thus exists a fundamental difference between the two concepts, both of which are in their different circumstances important. In this monograph, it is proposed to treat the common law of wrongful dismissal. Statutory unfair dismissal will be the subject of discussion in a future monograph.

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.

February 27, 1973 Factory — Statutory duty — Fume — Inhalation of low concentrations of oxides of nitrogen over prolonged period — Chronic lung illness — Employers' constructive knowledge of health hazard — Medical and other publications — Whether sufficiently indicating health hazard from 1965 onwards — Factories Act, 1961 (9 & 10 Eliz. II, c. 34), s. 63 (1).

June 22,1972 Damages — Remoteness — Negligence — Economic loss — Contractors damaging cable supplying electricity to factory — Physical damage to metal in factory's furnace as result of power cut — Loss of profit from “melt” and from further melts which would have taken place if no power cut — Whether economic loss recoverable — Whether economic loss attaching to physical loss recoverable — Doctrine of parasitic damages.

July 6, 1973 Factories — Eyes — Protective equipment — Whether “suitable” goggles “provided” — Whether compliance with statutory duty excludes employers' common law duty of care — Duty of employers at common law — Non‐Ferrous Metals (Melting and Founding) Regulations, 1962 (S.I. 1962 No. 1667) reg. 13(1) (c),(4).

November 28, 1967 Factory — Lifting tackle — Hook — Steelworks — Removal of scab — Hook placed under it — Hook suspended from chain of crane — Strain taken up by crane to enable brick to be placed under scab — Whether “raising” operation — Factories Act, 1961 (9 & 10 Eliz. II. c.34), s. 26(1).