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.

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).

In the previous monograph, a discussion took place on what constitutes dismissal and when the termination of the contract of employment takes effect. These two aspects treat the first of the statutory qualifications necessary to enable the employee to exercise his right not to be unfairly dismissed, namely that he must first be dismissed.

April 18, 1972 Negligence — Contributory negligence — Damages — Apportionment — Plaintiffs minor contributory negligence — Whether to be disregarded — Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act, 1945 (8, 9 & 10 Geo. VI, c. 28) s. 1(1).

November 23, 1972 Master and Servant — Breach of statutory duty — Mine — Management's duty to ensure suitable appliances “readily available” — Supplies available between shifts at colliery stores — Need for tool at coal face during shift — Whether system complying with regulation — Coal and Other Mines (Managers and Officials) Regulations, 1956 (S.I. 1956 No. 1758), reg. 2.

Since their creation through the Industrial Training Act 1964 to hear appeals against levies, the jurisdiction of industrial tribunals has grown considerably. One aspect of this jurisdiction, unfair dismissal, is examined here. Basic principles related to the law of unfair dismissal are examined. The practice and procedure of an industrial tribunal solely in connection with unfair dismissal cases are examined in greater detail. A case study is used to illustrate the important aspects of procedure. Appendices give relevant forms and extracts from the appropriate Code of Practice.

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.

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.

Discusses the long existing and confusing problems of establishing the relationship of who is, and who if not, a dependent worker. Reflects developments which have occurred in British law as it affects the employment field, plus an evaluation and analysis of some of the different types of employment relationships which have evolved by examining, where possible, the status of each of these relationships. Concludes that the typical worker nowadays finds himself in a vulnerable position both economically and psychologically owing to the insecurity which exists.