LSN: Labor & Employment Law (Topic)最新文献

{"title":"A Response to the Challenges Posed by the Binary Divide between Employee and Self-Employed","authors":"C. Nyombi","doi":"10.1108/IJLMA-03-2013-0012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-03-2013-0012","url":null,"abstract":"Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the nature of the legal relationship tying workers to employers. It explores how the individual who is categorised as an employee is distinguished from a self-employed or independent contractor or a worker. The common law tests for classifying employment status are analysed against a backdrop of emerging research literature. Recommendations for reform are provided, drawing from the work of prominent scholars such as Mark Freedland and Simon Deakin. Design/methodology/approach – The paper reviews court decisions and examines arguments raised in relation to the binary divide between employed and self-employed. The paper is largely conceptual. Findings – This paper has shown that divergence between law and realities of employment still puzzle modern law reformers and judges alike. The common law test have proved to be inadequate and new solutions have been recommended. One of the suggest solutions is to import the doctrine of good faith into the tests. Origin...","PeriodicalId":262943,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Labor & Employment Law (Topic)","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124452393","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Taking Self-Regulation Seriously: High-Ranking Officer Sanctions for Work-Law Violations","authors":"Timothy P. Glynn","doi":"10.15779/Z38F935","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38F935","url":null,"abstract":"Work law confronts a vexing enforcement gap. After decades of employer-side pushback and doctrinal erosion, the traditional mechanisms through which labor and employment protections have been enforced — command-and-control regulatory oversight and private litigation — now fall short in large sectors of the economy. And unions, once a powerful check against employer overstepping, are absent in the vast majority of workplaces and weaker where they still exist. The result is widespread noncompliance, particularly at the low end of the labor market.As the traditional approaches to enforcement have waned, self-regulatory alternatives to fostering legal compliance have gained traction in both theory and practice. Yet, despite their rhetorical appeal and likely staying power, they, too, have failed.This Article traces the decline of the traditional mechanisms for enforcing workplace rights and diagnoses the failure of existing self-regulatory regimes. It then proposes a different strategy for enhancing compliance within firms: imposing “professional-like” supervisory duties on high-ranking corporate officers to ensure firm compliance with work-law standards. Existing self-regulatory models fail precisely because receding oversight and enforcement risks render their inducements too weak to ensure genuine self-regulation. But the principal decision-makers within these firms would approach compliance with far greater vigor if they were bound — personally — to do so. In an era in which the shortcomings in external enforcement are unlikely to be eliminated, supplementing firm-level accountability with a carefully calibrated regime that targets firm decision-makers themselves offers a potentially effective and cost-efficient way to promote greater adherence to work-law mandates.","PeriodicalId":262943,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Labor & Employment Law (Topic)","volume":"23 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116582563","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Parallel Contract","authors":"Aditi Bagchi","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2012679","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2012679","url":null,"abstract":"This Article identifies a pervasive model of contracting that is inadequately treated in existing law and theory. In parallel contract, one party enters into a series of contracts with many similarly situated individuals on background terms that are presumptively identical. In these settings, the transaction costs associated with negotiating or even unilaterally tailoring terms to individuals exceed the benefit from such tailoring. Instead, the repeat party sets uniform background terms based on facts pertaining to its contracting partners as a group, including the mean and distribution of their preferences. Parallel contracts depart from the classical model of contract in two fundamental ways. First, obligations are not robustly dyadic in that they are neither tailored to the two parties to a given agreement nor understood by those parties by way of communications with each other. Second, obligations are not fixed at a discrete moment of contract. Parallel contracts should be interpreted differently than agreements more consistent with the classic model; in particular, the obligations of the repeat party should be understood by reference to its most recent practices and communications with any of the other parties in a given setting.","PeriodicalId":262943,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Labor & Employment Law (Topic)","volume":"82 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117253994","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"It’s Not Working: Barriers to the Inclusion of Workers with Mental Health Issues","authors":"Tess Sheldon","doi":"10.22329/wyaj.v29i0.4484","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22329/wyaj.v29i0.4484","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the judicial treatment of complaints of discrimination from workers with mental health issues. Equality protections promise full inclusion in social, work and community life. The principle of inclusion is understood in three inter-related parts: inclusion in the workforce, inclusion in decision-making and, in the most broad and prospective sense, inclusion in Canadian society. The current framework of equality protections has not effectively addressed these core values of inclusion for workers with mental health issues. The workplace continues to be a site of discrimination and harassment. Barriers prevent workers with mental health issues from getting or keeping employment, discourage their participation in decision-making, and entrench the devaluation, isolation and exclusion of persons with mental health issues. Accommodative measures must be alive.","PeriodicalId":262943,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Labor & Employment Law (Topic)","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114656118","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Case C-325/08, Olympique Lyonnais SASP v. Olivier Bernard and Newcastle United UFC, Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 16 March 2010, Not Yet Reported","authors":"J. Lindholm","doi":"10.54648/cola2010051","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/cola2010051","url":null,"abstract":"Case C-325/08, Olympique Lyonnais SASP v. Olivier Bernard and Newcastle United UFC, Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 16 March 2010","PeriodicalId":262943,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Labor & Employment Law (Topic)","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134122862","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Forfeiture by Cancellation or Termination","authors":"Charles Tiefer","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1612329","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1612329","url":null,"abstract":"Termination powers and conditions of performance empower one party to treat its own obligations under the contract as discharged or canceled based on something less, often much less, than material breach by the other party. Perhaps no current topic spanning a diverse subject within basic contract law invites doctrinal development as much as termination powers and conditions. Major examples of such powers include the employer's power to terminate employment at will, the government's power to terminate public contractors for convenience, the insurer's right not to pay otherwise covered insureds who fail to fulfill conditions, and the government's right to penalize contractors who violate various public policy conditions. Employers, the government, and insurers each use provisions in their adhesion contracts, arranging their power to terminate or to cancel for failure of a condition on a self-help basis and to be exercised relatively speedily and easily; thereby, serving their often valid interests of flexibility, control, and fulfillment of public policies.To study these issues as they have progressed in contemporary controversies, this Article compares and contrasts public and private contracts. Part II provides an overview of the factors relating to cancellation based on termination powers and conditions. In particular, it traces the previous lines of amelioration of the impact of conditions through Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent and the First and Second Restatements. Respected articles by Professor Corbin in 1919 and Professor Childres in 1970 reflect the evolving academic commentary on how to define appropriate and inappropriate occasions for such harshness without sacrificing the practical usefulness conditions may often have.Part III turns to the issue of compensating some parties faced with the exercise of a power of termination. It starts with the tremendous recent ferment over employers' power of termination of employment at will. About two-thirds of all employees are employees at will, and the stable forms of such employment are increasingly considered as a possible relationship contract, making the law regarding their termination a matter of general importance. The analysis here draws upon the public policy indicated in federal tax policy and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”): promoting employment-based pension reliance interests, a public policy of increased importance as permanent mass layoffs through downsizing became a major practice, even at stable employers, starting in recent decades and, now, even more so, in the economic slowdown of 2001-2002.Then, Part III turns to another area of termination powers in contracts, the governmental power of termination for convenience and the striking development in 1996, the demise of the Torncello doctrine that expanded contract termination power while keeping it subject to the compensation of public contractors' reliance interests. The Article then discusses its salie","PeriodicalId":262943,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Labor & Employment Law (Topic)","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130994880","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}