Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
An employer could avoid a redundancy payment by dismissing for misconduct during the notice period, but only for a repudiatory breach, which effectively means the employee would have acted as if he has torn up the employment contract, e.g. by going on strike, emptying the company safe or punching out the managing director.
Section 139 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 defines the two situations in which a redundancy may occur: (a) the fact that his employer has ceased or intends to cease— (i) to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or (ii) to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed, or
An "employee" has all those rights, and also the right to a written contract of employment, time off for pregnancy or child care, reasonable notice before a fair dismissal and a redundancy payment, and the duty to contribute to the National Insurance fund and pay income tax. [36]
NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975), is a United States labor law case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.It held that employees in unionized workplaces have the right under the National Labor Relations Act to the presence of a union steward during any management inquiry that the employee reasonably believes may result in discipline.
The Redundancy Payments Act 1965 (c. 62) was an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that introduced into UK labour law the principle that after a qualifying period of work, people would have a right to a severance payment in the event of their jobs becoming economically unnecessary to the employer. The functions of the redundancy ...
Google workers have been reduced to tears by fears of being made redundant, a union representative told a London rally. Employees protested outside the tech giant’s King’s Cross headquarters ...
Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] UKHL 8 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.. The phrase 'Polkey deduction' has become a standard concept in UK Employment Tribunals, as a result of this case and later ones, meaning that even if a Tribunal decides a dismissal was unfair, it must separately decide whether the compensatory ...
Opponents, such as Richard Kahlenberg, [2] [23] have argued that right-to-work laws simply "gives employees the right to be free riders—to benefit from collective bargaining without paying for it." [24] [25] Benefits the dissenting union members would receive despite not paying dues also include representation during arbitration proceedings. [26]