About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

3 Bus. L. Rev. 1 (1982)

handle is hein.kluwer/blr0003 and id is 1 raw text is: Business Law Review In Perspective Insurance Law 3 Insolvency Floating Charges - Solvency as a Test of Validity 5 Employment Acquired Rights for Employees 7 Copyright Reform of Copyright 9 Companies Companies Act - I 23 City News Infobank Brussels Newsletter American Newsletter ]ABC] Editorial Office 9-12 Bell Yard, Temple Bar London WC2A 2JR Telephone: 01-405 6900 Subscription Office Butterworths Borough Green, Sevenoaks, Kent Telephone: Borough Green (0732) 884567 Advertisement Managers. T G Scott & Son Ltd 30-32 Southampton Street London WC2E 7HR Telephone: 01-240 2032 Consultant Editor Keith Walmsley Fcis Solicitor Editor Ruth Eldon BA Assistant Editor Silvia Perrini BA Barrister Vol 3 No 1 January 1982 Subscription January-December 1982 £60 post free, inland I edto Trade Union Immunities Revisited In our February 1981 editorial we stated that our overall reaction to the Green Paper on Trade Union Immunities was that it was unlikely to produce any useful reforms of practical value (see also the analysis of the document at (1981) 2 BLR 156). The Secretary of State for Employment, Mr Norman Tebbit, has now published his proposals for a Bill on this subject to be introduced early in 1982. We have to say that those parts of the proposals concerned with the removal of the immunity of trade unions from actions in tort (trade union officials can already be made liable where they step outside defined areas of immunity) are not likely to make any material contribution to industrial har- mony. In times of industrial peace the proposals would have little relevance and in times of conflict the proposals would very likely lead to counter- productive confrontation. Perhaps a more important part of the proposals concerns the placing of further restrictions on closed shops and increasing the remedies for employees unfairly dismissed because of a closed shop. Clearly these measures will be unpalatable. to trade unions but seem inevitable bearing in mind the doubts cast by recent judgments of the Euro- pean Human Rights Court on the use made of closed shops in the UK. The Government's proposals do not make reference to a recommendation by the Engineering Employers Federation which has urged that an employer whose business is badly disrupted by industrial action should be able to lay off employees without pay including those not on strike. The intention is to redress the balance between employers and employees since at present a union can cause great disruption to any em- ployer, at little cost to itself, simply by bringing out on strike key personnel such as computer staff - - other members of the union cc-.... ed on the employer's staff can continue to report for work and draw their pay in the usual way. The employer is then caught in a pincer movement since his out- put will have been effectively disrupted but his staff overheads will continue to run against him. The Government is well aware of the mechanics of this strategy since it was employed to great effect against them during the recent civil service dispute. The EEF further suggests that a similar power of laying off should apply where the employer's business is paralysed by industrial action within a monopoly supplier of goods or essential services, such as power or transport, to that business. In the view of the EEF, adoption of these measures would greatly lessen the inci- dence of hastily or ill-considered strikes since the striking workers would have to have regard to the effects on non- striking fellow workers. In our view these suggestions are too far reaching in that they would quite unfairly penalise employees who had no wish to take part in the dispute con- cerned. We do, however, believe that the Government should very seriously consider whether the law could be amended to counter this new practice of withdrawing the labour of only key per- sonnel, possibly by giving employers some restricted power of lay-off. Credit Cards In our November 1980 editorial we expressed doubts regarding the recom- mendation of the Monopolies and Mer- gers Commission that traders should not be prohibited from discriminating in price terms between customers pay- ing by cash or credit card. We were concerned at the possible abuse of credit card surcharges by traders. Regrettably these fears have proved jus- tified. In the event, the Department of Trade has found it necessary to permit the credit card companies to re-impose- prohibitions against such price dis- crimination. We applaud the Depart- ment's prompt action which will remove an obstacle to the growth of non-cash settlement methods. Copyright' 2007 by Kluwer Law International. All rights reserved. No claim asserted to original government works.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most