Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The New Zealand Employment Relations Act 2000 (sometimes known by its acronym, ERA) is a statute of the Parliament of New Zealand.It was substantially amended by the Employment Relations (Validation of Union Registration and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2001 and by the ERAA (No 2) 2004.
The key issue in this case concerned sections 6(2) and 6(3) of the Employment Relations Act which stated, (2) In deciding for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) whether a person is employed by another person under a contract of service, the Court or the Authority (as the case may be) must determine the real nature of the relationship between them.
R (Seymour-Smith) v Secretary of State for Employment [2000] UKHL 12 and (1999) C-167/97 is a landmark case in United Kingdom labour law and European labour law on the qualifying period of work before an employee accrues unfair dismissal rights. It was held by the House of Lords and the European Court of Justice that a two-year qualifying ...
Labour rights in New Zealand are largely covered by both statute, particularly the Employment Relations Act 2000, and common law (including cases, judicial decisions and tribunal decision). The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment carries out most of the day to day administrative functions surrounding labour rights and their ...
The Employment Court of New Zealand (Māori: Te Kooti Take-a-mihi o Aotearoa) is a specialist court for employment disputes. It mainly deals with issues arising under the Employment Relations Act 2000. The Employment Court is a court of record and has equal standing to the High Court of New Zealand.
The Employment Relations Amendment Act (No 2) 2004 (No 86) The Employment Relations Amendment Act 2006 (No 41) The Employment Relations Amendment Act 2007 (No 2) The Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Act 2007 (No 105) The Employment Relations (Breaks, Infant Feeding, and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2008 (No 58) The ...
Employment contract, mutuality of obligation, casual worker, union discrimination O'Kelly v Trusthouse Forte plc [1983] 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.
In the present case, the matters about the applicants complain—principally, the employers' de-recognition of the unions for collective bargaining purposes and offers of more favourable conditions of employment to employees agreeing not to be represented by the unions—did not involve direct intervention by the State.