Search results

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:

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).

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.

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.

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.

As the number of working mothers increases, the problems associated with being an employee and a parent also increase. This has led to a debate concerning the employer’s role/responsibility in helping employees deal with these problems. Congress has seriously considered legislation that would mandate a certain level of “accommodation” by covered employers. And several states have passed laws granting job‐secured leaves. This article presents some of the arguments for and against such legislation, the basics of the proposed federal legislation, and the impact of legislation on employers and employees.

As biomedicine becomes increasingly enmeshed in modern life, biomedicalization processes have implications for reproductive policy, including abortion policy. Informed consent provisions have been a prominent trend in state-level abortion lawmaking in the United States in recent years. Modeled on the practice of securing informed consent for medical procedures, informed consent provisions stipulate the information a person must receive before they can consent to an abortion. Informed consent provisions purportedly require that this information be objective, scientifically accurate, and non-judgmental. Through an analysis of informed consent provisions in Texas abortion legislation from 1993 to 2015, this chapter explores how such provisions employ medical and biomedical tropes to frame regulations that restrict access to abortion care as ostensibly protecting women’s health and safety. I find that informed consent legislation in Texas selectively borrows from medical and biomedical lexicons, cites strategic empirical evidence, and co-opts medical techniques and experts in ways that encumber abortion access.

Modern employment legislation invests the employee with important rights resulting in a greater degree of job security and improved legal protection in his employment. These rights or entitlements which are all personal in nature are divisible, for the sake of convenience, into four parts. Firstly, individual rights. These include guarantee payments, medical suspension, maternity, time off for specified activities, and the employer's insolvency. These rights are by no means exhaustive. Other rights of an individual nature as for example the right not to belong to a trade union where a closed shop is in operation; rights in connection with trade union membership; written reasons for dismissal; and so on, will be treated in the context of the discussion which will take place under the appropriate heading. Secondly, it is proposed to examine the employees right not to be discriminated against in employment on grounds of race and sex, thirdly, his right not to be unfairly dismissed will be analysed, to be followed finally by his right to redundancy payments. In this monograph, it is proposed to examine the first of these personal rights, namely the employee's individual rights. Each of the others will be discussed in subsequent monographs. It should be noted that unlike the common law terms implied into the contract of employment which consist of duties imposed on both the employer and the employee and which can be contracted out of by an express term in the contact of employment the statutory conditions of employment cannot be dispensed with in that manner. Like the implied terms at common law, the statutory conditions of employment too form another source of contract of employment though of course they are independent in that they neither form part of the contract of employment nor of the common law rights.

The purpose of this paper is to highlight that the lack of a specific right to a medical translator under International Law can be considered an outlier when viewed within the context of the copious legislation regarding translation in general. Given the lack of specific legislation guaranteeing the right to a medical translator under International Law, the paper further aims to highlight the resulting effects on medical providers and patients.

The paper opted for a detailed historical legal analysis regarding the history of translation under International Law in general, as well as specific international, intranational, and regional legislation regarding the right to a translator in medical settings. The data were complemented by a thorough review of documentary analysis of existing scholarship, detailing the experiences of medical providers and patients.

The paper provides insights as to how international legislators have traditionally viewed medical translation: whether as a matter of international relations, access to care, discrimination, or as a fundamental part of the Right to Health. The paper finds that differing views on the subject have result in nations, regions, and medical providers having great discretion in deciding which patients are provided with a translator. The paper finds that such decisions are often made on a basis other than that of patient health.

Because the provisioning of translators in medical settings currently inevitably falls to a nation or single institution, research into which patients receive a translator and why lacks generalizability (because empirical data are not available for every region of the world). Researchers in future are encouraged to further develop the empirical evidence found in their regions with a more quantitative approach, documenting the non-provisioning of translators in their areas and categorizing the motives behind the decisions of medical providers in a given area.

The paper includes implications for patients who have suffered adverse events after miscommunication (or lack of communication) with their medical providers. The paper aims to investigate in what venue may they seek legal remedy, and on what grounds. The paper also has implications for national and regional governments. Given the lack of binding International Law regarding medical translation, national and regional governments attempt to guarantee the provisioning of translators to some patients and not others. Such decisions may become political and have unintended consequences for medical providers and patients alike.

The paper includes implications for international legislators and national legislators. The paper also includes implications for medical providers and patients, as language barriers are becoming a more common feature in medical facilities around the world due to globalization and migration. The rate of patients suffering adverse events after not being provided with a competent medical interpreter is bound to rise.

This paper fulfills a need to examine medical translation in the context of other types of translation under International Law. This paper fulfills a need to study how the lack of specific International Legislation guaranteeing the right to medical translation has implications for national/regional legislators, medical providers, and patients alike. This paper fulfills a need to discuss the legal remedies available to patients who have suffered adverse medical events after not being able to communicate with their medical provider.