Search results

An employee who is eligible to make a complaint for unfair dismissal has to prove that he has been dismissed by the employer if the employer contests that the employee has in fact been dismissed. If the dismissal is not contested, all the employee has to do is to show that he has been dismissed. This constitutes the first stage of the proceedings in an industrial tribunal.

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.

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.

The following are portions of a paper, bearing the title as above, which was read before the Royal Society of Arts on April 18th, 1945, by Sir Edward V. Appleton, LL.D., F.R.S., the Secretary of the Department; Sir Henry Dale, P.R.S., presiding.

At the Royal Society of Health annual conference, no less a person than the editor of the B.M.A.'s “Family Doctor” publications, speaking of the failure of the anti‐smoking campaign, said we “had to accept that health education did not work”; viewing the difficulties in food hygiene, there are many enthusiasts in public health who must be thinking the same thing. Dr Trevor Weston said people read and believed what the health educationists propounded, but this did not make them change their behaviour. In the early days of its conception, too much was undoubtedly expected from health education. It was one of those plans and schemes, part of the bright, new world which emerged in the heady period which followed the carnage of the Great War; perhaps one form of expressing relief that at long last it was all over. It was a time for rebuilding—housing, nutritional and living standards; as the politicians of the day were saying, you cannot build democracy—hadn't the world just been made “safe for democracy?”—on an empty belly and life in a hovel. People knew little or nothing about health or how to safeguard it; health education seemed right and proper at this time. There were few such conceptions in France which had suffered appalling losses; the poilu who had survived wanted only to return to his fields and womenfolk, satisfied that Marianne would take revenge and exact massive retribution from the Boche!

The analyses of trends in prosecutions under the Food and Drugs Act, 1955 and the various regulations, which we have prepared every two years or so, covering a three‐month period, have been so much appreciated by readers, both in the administration and the industry itself, that we have prepared a more extended survey, covering the whole of 1966. The survey, as before, takes the form of a month‐by‐month analysis of reports of legal proceedings received by us from all parts of the country, and as formerly records the prosecutions under similar groupings; cases under Section 2, subdivided into those relating to compositional offences, the presence of foreign bodies and those relating to mouldy food: false description cases under Section 6 of the Merchandise Marks Acts; Section 8, the unfit food provision, also subdivided with special categories for foreign bodies and mouldy food; Section 32, milk cases; cases under the Food Hygiene Regulations, 1960, with smoking offences separated; the Milk and Dairies Regulations, consisting almost entirely of prosecutions under Reg. 27, Meat Regulations, Preservative Regulations, Colouring Matter in Food Regulations, etc.

The Milk (Amendment) Order, 1917, which came into force on December 31st, provides that milk shall be sold retail only by Imperial measure; that no colouring matter shall be added to milk or cream intended for sale; that no milk to which any water has been added shall knowingly be sold or offered for sale; that no person may use for the purpose of his trade any milk can or milk bottle which bears the name, trade name, trade mark, or trade device of some person other than himself or his employer, except with the consent of such person. The Order contains a new clause, in substitution for Clauses 4 and 6 of the Milk Order, 1917 (which are revoked), providing that where milk is sold wholesale by or on behalf of any person other than the producer the maximum prices chargeable shall, unless otherwise determined, pursuant to the Order, be as follows:—

The unjustifiable claims made by manufacturers of a certain class with regard to their products are frequently of a startling character, such claims often being so utterly absurd that in the case of educated persons they serve not to recommend the puffed goods, but rather to hold up the manufacturer who makes such statements to ridicule. False claims and false allegations are always made with one object in view, namely, to obtain money by taking advantage of public ignorance. There are two distinct kinds of false claims and allegations: they may either be unfair and unjustifiable with regard to the properties, uses, and value of the article, or, what is far worse, they may be entirely false allegations as to the purity and genuineness of the product. With regard to the latter practice it is difficult to find words of condemnation sufficiently strong. The manufacturer not only sells an adulterated and inferior article, but boldly makes a statement to the public to the effect that the article is pure and genuine. It is unpardonable that men who claim to be honourable men of commerce should make such statements, knowing full well that the manufacture of the article consists in a process of adulteration. The effect of these malpractices is not only to gull the public, but to cause the manufacturer of products which are really genuine and of good quality to suffer severely. To any reasonable mind it is quite evident that really good and genuine products cannot be sold to compete in price with articles which, despite the strong claims that may be made for them, are inferior and often worthless. The unscrupulous manufacturer is putting money into his own pocket to which he has no right, and which in reality belongs to those who have suffered as the result of dishonest competition.

Before leaving the subject of the relations of the Public Analyst to the Medical Officer of Health it is desirable to refer to a matter which sometimes gives rise to difficulties and to disagreements between the two officers. Apparently by a legal oversight the duty of looking after the water supply of a district is allotted to the Medical Officer—but there is nothing to show in what way and to what extent he is to be personally occupied in carrying out this task. It also happens that water is specifically excluded from the scope of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, and, in view of these circumstances, some Medical Officers have adopted the idea that their duties are not to be limited to administrative work in this connection, but that it is also incumbent on them to make the necessary analyses; while in other, and perhaps more frequent instances the local autherities, particularly in country districts, deliberately place that burden on the shoulders of the Medical Officer when arranging the conditions of his appointment.

No one acquainted with the facts that gave rise to the packing‐house scandals of the year 1906 believed that the belated promises of reform then made by certain American meat packers were to be relied upon. Many of these people were threatened with a serious loss of trade, and it was evidently their best policy at the time not too strongly to oppose legislation that was apparently devised to permanently better the conditions in the slaughtering establishments and packing‐houses.