| 翻訳と辞書 |
| O'Kelly v Trusthouse Forte plc ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
O'Kelly v Trusthouse Forte plc
''O'Kelly v Trusthouse Forte plc'' () ICR 728 was a UK labour law case, in which a bare majority held that a requirement for a contract is "mutuality of obligation" between the parties, which was thought to mean an ongoing duty to offer and accept work. It has been consistently doubted,〔e.g. ''Lee Ting Sang v Chung Chi-Keung'' () UKPC 9〕 and its outcome reversed by legislation,〔e.g. Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s 146〕 and its reasoning superseded by ''Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher'',〔() UKSC 41〕 which states that the only "mutual" obligations that are required is the consideration of work for a ''quid pro quo''.
==Facts==
Some waiters were hired to do dinner functions at the Grosvenor House Hotel. They were called up for banqueting occasions, and in their contracts it was written that they had no obligation to come, and by the same token the employer had no obligation to call them. They tried to organise a trade union, and were dismissed. They argued that they were dismissed unfairly, because trade union legislation (now in the Trade Union (Labour Relations) Consolidation Act 1992 s 162) gave them a right to not be discriminated against as "employees". However the employer argued that the unfair dismissal legislation (now, Employment Rights Act 1996 s 94) only covered "employees" - something different (now defined in ERA 1996 s 230) - which did not cover their situation. Representing the employer was Alexander Irvine QC, later the Lord Chancellor.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「O'Kelly v Trusthouse Forte plc」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|