翻訳と辞書 ・ Williams Tower ・ Williams Township ・ Williams Township, Aitkin County, Minnesota ・ Williams Township, Calhoun County, Iowa ・ Williams Township, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania ・ Williams Township, Michigan ・ Williams Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania ・ Williams Township, Pennsylvania ・ Williams Township, Sangamon County, Illinois ・ Williams tube ・ Williams Unified School District ・ Williams v Attorney-General ・ Williams v Bayley ・ Williams v Carwardine ・ Williams v Commonwealth ・ Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd ・ Williams v Hensman ・ Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd ・ Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd ・ Williams v The Queen ・ Williams V-Jet II ・ Williams v. Florida ・ Williams v. Lee ・ Williams v. Mississippi ・ Williams v. North Carolina (1942) ・ Williams v. Price ・ Williams v. Pryor ・ Williams v. Rhodes ・ Williams v. Vidmar ・ Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.
|
|
Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd : ウィキペディア英語版 | Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd
''Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd'' () ICR 156 〔(EAT ). BAILII case number: () UKEAT 372_81_2201. Retrieved 03 September 2014.〕 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996. ==Facts== Compair Maxam Ltd was losing business. Departmental managers picked teams of core staff who could be retained to keep the business viable. They chose on personal preference for what they thought would be good for the company, but the union was not consulted. Other employees were dismissed for redundancy and given money beyond statutory minima. Five workers claimed dismissal was unfair. The Tribunal dismissed the claims, saying that the managers’ preferences were a reasonable way of doing the job. This was appealed on grounds of perversity.
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「Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd」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.
|
|