case study of labour law

NEW: HR, Payroll and Auto Staff Scheduling for Hourly Workforces.

Labor Forecasting

Task Management

Communications

Performance Management

Employee Engagement

Time & Attendance

Wage & Hour Automation

Restaurants

Hotels & Resorts

Bars & Breweries

Quick Service Restaurants

Stadiums & Events

Apparel & Fashion

Food Retail

Specialty Retail

Physicians & Clinics

CEO & Owner

Chief Financial Officer

General Manager

Human Resources

HR Department of 1

Payroll Manager

Implementation & Launch

Partners & Integrations

The top 7 recent employment law cases you should know

By David I. Brody

Jul. 31, 2020

When March began this year, nobody had any idea what was just around the corner – a global pandemic, a fiscal meltdown, unprecedented unemployment and a national reckoning with the terrible consequences of centuries of racial violence and inequity. Then we all witnessed a historic decision from the Supreme Court, affirming, at long last, that our family and friends in the LBGTQ community are protected from discrimination in employment under federal law. 

In this ever-changing landscape, it is increasingly important to keep up to speed on the latest employment legal cases and developments. Below is a brief summary of the seven most significant employment legal cases.

1. U.S. Supreme Court Issues Landmark Civil Rights Decision

Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. (2020)

The Supreme Court has issued a landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County , holding that Title VII prohibits discrimination against employees based upon sexual orientation and transgender status. 

In the 6-3 Opinion of the Court, written by Justice Gorsuch — who, along with Chief Justice Roberts, sided with the four “liberal” members of the Court — the majority held that a “straightforward” rule emerges from the ordinary meaning and application of Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination: 

“[F]or an employer to discriminate against employees for being homosexual or transgender, the employer must intentionally discriminate against individual men and women in part because of sex . That has always been prohibited by Title VII’s plain terms — and that should be the end of the analysis.’” 

Such discrimination has long been a violation of Massachusetts law, Chapter 151B, but with the Bostock decision, it is now clearly unlawful to discriminate in employment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

2. Unlawful Employment Practices During the COVID-19 Pandemic

During these uncertain times, employers and employees alike are struggling to understand their legal rights and obligations. To that end, there has been a great deal of COVID-specific guidance provided by state and federal agencies, including the U.S. Equal Employment Commission , Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination , and Office of the Attorney General .

It is important to remember that neither a global pandemic nor an economic recession can be used as a shield by employers to carry out unlawful employment practices. 

Indeed, as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has noted, just because an employer may be required to “reduce its workforce does not mean that it is free to make its employment decisions on impermissible grounds: ‘even during a legitimate reorganization or workforce reduction, an employer may not dismiss employees for unlawful discriminatory reasons.’” See Sullivan v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. , 444 Mass. 34, 41–42 (2005).

If you think that you may have been illegally targeted, seek legal counsel as soon as possible and prior to waiving any legal rights.

Hlatky v. Steward Health Care System, Inc., 484 Mass. 566 (2020)

Following a jury trial, Dr. Hlatky, an experienced cancer researcher, was awarded $10 million in damages in a breach of contract action against her former employer, Steward Health. The $10 million damage award represented the cost of reestablishing her research laboratory, which she lost as a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct. 

On appeal, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court unanimously agreed the damages awarded were not too speculative, noting that the harm suffered by Dr. Hlatky, including the loss of her research laboratory, equipment, and cell samples, constituted her “life’s work.”

The Court was, however, divided regarding whether restrictions should be imposed on how Dr. Hlatky could use the $10 million award. In the six Justice decision, three Justices were concerned that, since the laboratory had not actually belonged to Dr. Hlatky, an unrestricted award might put Dr. Hlatky in a better position than she would have been had there been no breach, e.g., “[n]othing would prevent Hlatky from spending the $10 million on a house or a yacht rather than on the re-establishment of a cancer research laboratory.”

The other three Justice were not persuaded, “Whether she wishes to start again, whether she even could start again after so much time has passed and her faculty position has been lost, whether she wishes to use the money to fund different research or others; research in the same field, or whether she wants to hike the Appalachian trail — these matters simply are not our concern.”

These Justices pointed out that imposing restrictions on such a damage award would open a “Pandora’s box of unknown future harm to the predictability of contract law upon which contracting parties have relied for hundreds of years.”

As the Court was equally divided, the trial court’s award of monetary damages – without restrictions – was affirmed.

4. Non-Competition Agreements and the “Material Change” Doctrine

Now Bus. Intel., Inc. v. Donahue, C.A. No. 17-3732 (Middlesex Sup Ct. Apr. 1, 2020)

A non-competition agreement may become unenforceable if, after execution, the terms and conditions of employment are modified to the point where the parties have effectively abandoned the original employment agreement and entered into a new employment agreement. This is known as the “material change” doctrine which was delineated in F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Co. v. Barrington, 353 Mass. 585 (1968). The application of the material change doctrine is a highly fact-specific inquiry and will focus on factors, such as promotions, changes in job duties and titles, changes in remuneration, changes to sales area, as well as the associated time periods for such changes.

In the recent case of Now Bus. Intel. Inc. V. Donahue , the Superior Court rejected an employee’s material change defense to the enforceability of his non-compete. In granting Summary Judgment in favor of the former employer, the Court ultimately held that the temporary and short-term changes to the employee’s job duties, without more, did not amount to a material change sufficient to render otherwise reasonable and valid post-employment restriction unenforceable.

5. Anti-SLAPP Motion Revived

Rosario v. Caring Bees Healthcare, Inc., C.A. No. 19-P-1223 (Mass. App. Ct. June 5, 2020)

Retaliatory lawsuits designed to silence one from speaking out are referred to as strategic lawsuits against public participation, or “SLAPP Suits,” and are expressly forbidden in Massachusetts. See the Anti-SLAPP Statute, M.G.L. c. 231, § 59H (the “Statute”). The Statute provides a quick mechanism to dispose of SLAPP suits, and it allows the victim of a SLAPP suit to recover attorney’s fees.

Here, Ms. Rosario had complained (to co-workers, her mother, the MCAD, and, finally, in court) of sexual harassment by her supervisor, Jean Paul Karangwa. In response, Mr. Karangwa counter-sued Ms. Rosario for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Relying on the Statute, Ms. Rosario moved to dismiss Mr. Karangwa’s counter-claims. The lower court denied her motion, indicating that there was a colorable basis to believe that Ms. Rosario’s statements were defamatory, i.e ., false and causing damage to Mr. Karangwa.

However, the Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed and remanded. The Court reiterated that the legal issue was not solely whether Mr. Karangwa’s claims were “colorable” but also, if so, whether or not they were retaliatory, i.e. , “primarily brought to chill [Ms. Rosario’s] legitimate petitioning activities.” 

In considering whether or not Mr. Karangwa’s counterclaims were retaliatory, the lower court should consider, among other things, (1) whether the claims are ‘typical’ SLAPP claims, e.g., claims that one would not likely bring on their own, (2) the temporal proximity of when the counter-claims were brought to when Ms. Rosario engaged in escalated protected activity, e.g., when Ms. Rosario filed her claims to court, and (3) the chilling impact on such activity by, for example, increasing the cost to Ms. Rosario of complaining about sexual harassment.

The case was remanded to the lower court for a sequential application of the correct anti-SLAPP standard.

6. Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements

Theodore v. Uber Technologies, Inc., C.A. No. 18-cv-12147 (D. Mass. Mar. 3, 2020)

Many executives (and employees generally) are subject to arbitration clauses of which they are unaware until a dispute arises. The enforceability of such clauses is often hotly disputed. This is particularly true in civil rights cases, pitting two established principles against each other ( i.e. , the preference for arbitration under federal law against a strong public policy against discrimination). Enforceability is often fact-specific, such as whether the agreement to arbitrate and the waiver of judicial remedy are sufficiently obvious and clear.

Although Theodore is not an employment case, its analysis may be useful, especially regarding on-line forms that invite a user to follow one or more links which can be easily bypassed. The US District Court’s analysis involved not only a review of the text itself but also a discussion of the font size, layout, and background color on the page. The Court went so far as to include screen-shots in the decision.

Ultimately, the Court refused to compel arbitration where Uber invited a customer to click to “CREATE ACCOUNT” without “reasonably communicating” the impact of doing so.

7. The Process – and Not Just the Final Decision – Matters

Comcast Corp. v. Nat’l Assoc. of African American-Owned Media, 140 S.Ct. 1009 (2020)

In Comcast , the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held that the but-for causation standard applies to claims of racial discrimination raised under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, a statute which guarantees all persons the same right “to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens.” However, the Court expressly declined to decide an issue raised by Comcast, i.e , whether § 1981(a) guarantees only the right to equivalent contractual outcomes, as Comcast argued, or if it also guarantees the right to an equivalent contracting process, as the law has been interpreted for years.

In her concurrence, Justice Ginsburg addressed Comcast’s argument directly:

“I write separately to resist Comcast’s attempt to cabin a ‘sweeping’ law designed to ‘break down all discrimination between black men and white men” … Under Comcast’s view, § 1981 countenances racial discrimination so long as it occurs in advance of the final contract-formation decision. Thus, a lender would not violate § 1981by requiring prospective borrowers to provide one reference letter if they are white and five if they black. Nor would an employer violate § 1981 by reimbursing expenses for white interviewees but requiring black applicants to pay their own way … That view cannot be squared with the statute. An equal ‘right … to make… contracts’ … is an empty promise without equal opportunities to present or receive offers and negotiate over terms … It is implausible that a law ‘intended to secure … practical freedom’ … would condone discriminatory barriers to contract formation.”

As Justice Ginsburg recognized, and recent events have made abundantly clear, we must remain vigilant to protect and expand, not erode, our civil rights laws.

Schedule, engage, and pay your staff in one system with Workforce.com.

Recommended

federal law, minimum wage, pay rates, state law, wage law compliance

Staffing Management

absence management, Employee scheduling software, predictive scheduling, shift bid, shift swapping

Time and Attendance

labor costs, overtime, scheduling, time tracking, work hours

Join over 52,000 of your HR peers

Don't miss out on the latest tactics and insights at the forefront of HR.

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

Labor & Employment Supreme Court Cases

Many of the labor and employment cases that have reached the Supreme Court involve claims of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in the workplace. These may arise under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits adverse employment actions based on the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of an employee. The Supreme Court also has reviewed cases under parallel anti-discrimination laws, such as the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Meanwhile, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 imposes rules for pension, health, and other benefit plans in the private sector. The Supreme Court has clarified ERISA terms and requirements, in addition to determining whether ERISA preempts various state laws. The ERISA preemption clause provides that the law supersedes any state laws to the extent that they relate to employee benefit plans. However, the ERISA savings clause allows states to regulate the business of insurance.

Other workplace issues addressed by the Supreme Court include employee privacy, wage and hour rules under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the free speech rights of government employees. The Court also has discussed the use of arbitration to resolve labor and employment disputes.

Below is a selection of Supreme Court cases involving labor and employment, arranged from newest to oldest.

Author: Clarence Thomas

The traditional four-factor test for a preliminary injunction governs NLRB requests for a preliminary injunction from a federal district court while administrative enforcement proceedings take place.

Author: Elena Kagan

Although an employee must show some harm from a forced job transfer to prevail in a Title VII claim, they do not need to show that the injury satisfies a significance test.

Author: Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

Title VII requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. The impact on coworkers is relevant only to the extent that it goes on to affect the conduct of the business.

Author: Neil Gorsuch

An employer that fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII.

The federal-sector provision of the ADEA demands that personnel actions be untainted by any consideration of age.

The state's extraction of agency fees from non-consenting public-sector employees violates the First Amendment.

Author: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Dodd-Frank's anti-retaliation provision does not extend to an individual who has not reported a violation of the securities laws to the SEC.

Author: Stephen Breyer

When an employer demotes an employee out of a desire to prevent the employee from engaging in protected political activity, the employee is entitled to challenge that unlawful action under the First Amendment and Section 1983 even if the employer's actions are based on a factual mistake about the employee's behavior.

Author: Anthony Kennedy

ERISA preempts a state law that governs or interferes with the uniformity of plan administration.

Author: Antonin Scalia

To prevail in a disparate treatment claim, an applicant needs to show only that their need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer's decision. They do not need to show that the employer had knowledge of their need.

Time spent waiting to undergo and undergoing security screenings is not compensable under the FLSA.

Author: Sonia Sotomayor

A public employee's sworn testimony outside the scope of their ordinary job duties is entitled to First Amendment protection.

Title VII retaliation claims must be proved according to traditional principles of but-for causation.

An employee is a supervisor for the purposes of vicarious liability under Title VII only if they are empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the victim.

Author: John Roberts

The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses bar lawsuits brought on behalf of ministers against their churches, claiming termination in violation of employment discrimination laws.

A government employer's allegedly retaliatory actions against an employee do not give rise to liability under the Petition Clause of the First Amendment unless the employee's petition relates to a matter of public concern.

In an employment discrimination class action, the conceptual gap between an individual's discrimination claim and the existence of a class of persons who have suffered the same injury must be bridged by significant proof that an employer operated under a general policy of discrimination. More generally, a class in a proposed class action has common questions of law or fact if their claims depend on a common contention of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution, which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each of the claims in one stroke.

If a supervisor performs an act motivated by discriminatory animus that is intended by the supervisor to cause an adverse employment action, and if that act is a proximate cause of the ultimate employment action, the employer is liable.

A government employer had a right to read text messages sent and received on a pager that the employer owned and issued to an employee.

Before an employer can engage in intentional discrimination for the asserted purpose of avoiding or remedying an unintentional disparate impact, the employer must have a strong basis in evidence to believe that it will be subject to disparate impact liability if it fails to take the race-conscious, discriminatory action.

A plaintiff bringing an ADEA disparate treatment claim must prove that age was the but-for cause of the adverse employment action.

A provision in a collective bargaining agreement that clearly and unmistakably requires union members to arbitrate ADEA claims is enforceable as a matter of federal law.

Author: David Souter

An employer defending a disparate impact claim under the ADEA bears both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion for the “reasonable factors other than age” (RFOA) affirmative defense.

The anti-retaliation provision of Title VII covers only those employer actions that would have been materially adverse to a reasonable employee or applicant. The plaintiff must show that the challenged action well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.

When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.

Author: John Paul Stevens

When employees must don protective clothing on the employer's premises before they engage in the productive labor for which they are primarily hired, the time that employees spend walking between the changing area and the production area is compensable under the FLSA. However, the time that employees spend waiting to put on the protective gear is not compensable.

While the ADEA authorizes recovery in disparate impact cases, ADEA Section 4(f)(1) significantly narrows its coverage by permitting any otherwise prohibited action when the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age.

ERISA prevents individuals from suing HMOs in state court for pure eligibility decisions. Also, if an individual at some point in time could have brought their claim under ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B), and no other independent legal duty is implicated by a defendant's actions, the individual's cause of action is completely preempted.

A plaintiff alleging sexual harassment can establish constructive discharge if they can show that the abusive working environment became so intolerable that their resignation qualified as a fitting response. An employer may assert the Faragher affirmative defense unless the plaintiff quit in reasonable response to an adverse action officially changing their employment status or situation.

Direct evidence of discrimination is not required for a plaintiff to obtain a mixed motive jury instruction under Title VII.

The common-law element of control is the principal guidepost to be followed in deciding whether director-shareholder physicians in a medical clinic should be counted as employees for the purposes of the ADA. Factors to be considered in deciding whether a shareholder-director is an employee include whether the organization can hire or fire the individual or set rules for their work, whether the organization supervises their work, whether they report to someone higher in the organization, whether they can influence the organization, whether written agreements or contracts show that the parties intended the individual to be an employee, and whether the individual shares in the profits, losses, and liabilities of the organization.

HMOs may be insurers and thus subject to state regulation of insurers. State laws directed toward the insurance industry are saved from preemption under ERISA's saving clause.

An agreement between an employer and an employee to arbitrate employment-related disputes does not bar the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) from pursuing victim-specific judicial relief, such as backpay, reinstatement, and damages, in an ADA enforcement action.

Author: Per Curiam

Judicial review of a labor arbitration decision pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement is very limited. Courts are not authorized to review an arbitrator's decision on the merits despite allegations that the decision rests on factual errors or misinterprets the parties' agreement. Even when the arbitrator's award may properly be vacated, the appropriate remedy is to remand the case for further arbitration proceedings.

A retaliation claim will not withstand a summary judgment motion when nobody could reasonably believe that the incident of which the plaintiff complained violated Title VII.

The exemption in Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act, which excludes contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce, is confined to transportation workers.

Author: Sandra Day O’Connor

A prima facie case of discrimination, combined with sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to reject the employer's non-discriminatory explanation for its decision, may be adequate to sustain a finding of liability for intentional discrimination under the ADEA.

Mixed treatment and eligibility decisions by health maintenance organization (HMO) physicians are not fiduciary decisions under ERISA.

An employer's conduct does not need to be independently egregious to satisfy the requirements for a punitive damages award in a Title VII case. However, in the punitive damages context, an employer may not be vicariously liable for the discriminatory employment decisions of managerial agents when these decisions are contrary to the employer's good-faith efforts to comply with Title VII.

For a union to waive employees' rights to a federal judicial forum for statutory anti-discrimination claims, the agreement to arbitrate these claims must be clear and unmistakable.

An employer is subject to vicarious liability to a victimized employee for an actionable hostile environment created by a supervisor with immediate or successively higher authority over the employee. When no tangible employment action is taken, the employer may raise an affirmative defense if they can show that they exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and the plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.

Under Title VII, an employee who refuses the unwelcome and threatening sexual advances of a supervisor, yet suffers no adverse, tangible job consequences, may recover damages from the employer without showing that the employer was negligent or otherwise at fault for the supervisor's actions, but the employer may interpose an affirmative defense. (The defense consists of the elements in Faragher below.)

Sex discrimination consisting of same-sex sexual harassment is actionable under Title VII.

The power to amend or abolish an employee welfare benefit plan does not include the power to discriminate against the plan's participants and beneficiaries for the purpose of interfering with their attainment of rights under the plan.

The salary-basis test denies exempt status under the Fair Labor Standards Act when employees are covered by a policy that permits disciplinary or other deductions in pay as a practical matter. That standard is met if there is either an actual practice of making such deductions or an employment policy that creates a significant likelihood of such deductions.

When employers or other plan sponsors adopt, modify, or terminate pension plans, they do not act as fiduciaries but are analogous to settlors of a trust.

The fact that one member of a protected class lost out to another member is irrelevant to an employment discrimination claim so long as they lost out because of their protected trait.

A law operating as an indirect source of merely economic influence on administrative decisions should not suffice to trigger ERISA preemption.

An employee discharged in violation of the ADEA is not barred from all relief when, after their discharge, their employer discovers evidence of wrongdoing that, in any event, would have led to their termination on lawful and legitimate grounds had the employer known of it.

Title VII is violated when the workplace is permeated with discriminatory behavior that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a discriminatorily hostile or abusive working environment. This standard requires an objectively hostile or abusive environment, as well as the victim's subjective perception that the environment is abusive.

An employment decision based on years of service is not necessarily age-based, since this factor is analytically distinct from age.

The common-law test for determining who qualifies as an employee under ERISA considers the hiring party's right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished. Other factors to consider include the skill required, the source of the instrumentalities and tools, the location of the work, the duration of the relationship between the parties, the extent of the hired party's discretion over when and how long to work, and the method of payment, among others.

Author: Byron White

An ADEA claim can be subjected to compulsory arbitration.

ERISA's deemer clause demonstrates Congress' clear intent to exclude from the reach of the saving clause self-funded ERISA plans by relieving them from state laws purporting to regulate insurance. State laws directed toward such plans are preempted because they relate to an employee benefit plan but are not saved because they do not regulate insurance.

The proper comparison in a disparate impact employment discrimination case is generally between the racial composition of the at-issue jobs and the racial composition of the qualified population in the relevant labor market.

Author: William Brennan

In the specific context of sex stereotyping, an employer that acts on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be, has acted on the basis of gender.

A policy of paying discharged employees for their unused vacation time does not constitute an employee welfare benefit plan within the meaning of ERISA, and a criminal action to enforce that policy is not foreclosed.

For disclosure purposes, a “participant” in an ERISA plan means an employee in currently covered employment (or reasonably expected to be in currently covered employment), or a former employee who has a reasonable expectation of returning to covered employment or who has a colorable claim to vested benefits. To establish that they may become eligible for benefits, a claimant must have a colorable claim that they will prevail in a suit for benefits, or that eligibility requirements will be fulfilled in the future.

The National Labor Relations Act does not permit a union, over the objections of dues-paying non-member employees, to expend funds collected from them on activities unrelated to collective bargaining activities.

Disparate impact analysis in an employment discrimination claim may be applied to subjective employment criteria.

To be preempted by ERISA, a state statute must have some connection with or reference to a plan.

ERISA preempts state common law tort and contract actions asserting improper processing of a claim for benefits under an insured employee benefit plan.

Both the inception and the scope of the intrusion must be reasonable when a public employer intrudes on the constitutionally protected privacy interests of government employees for non-investigatory, work-related purposes, as well as for investigations of work-related misconduct.

Author: William Rehnquist

A claim of hostile environment sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that is actionable under Title VII.

Author: Harry Blackmun

A law relates to an employee benefit plan for ERISA purposes if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan.

When a public employee speaks as an employee on matters only of personal interest, a federal court is generally not the appropriate forum to review the wisdom of a personnel decision taken by a public agency allegedly in reaction to the employee's behavior.

A non-job-related test that has a disparate impact and is used to limit or classify employees is used to discriminate within the meaning of Title VII, even if it was not designed or intended to have this effect and even if an employer tries to compensate for its discriminatory effect.

Author: Lewis Powell

When a plaintiff in a Title VII case has proved a prima facie case of employment discrimination, the defendant bears only the burden of explaining clearly the non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. It is sufficient if the defendant's evidence raises a genuine issue of fact as to whether it discriminated against the plaintiff.

Author: Potter Stewart

A regulation could permit private employees of a private employer to avoid workplace conditions that they believe pose grave dangers to their own safety, when the employees have no power under the regulation to order their employer to correct the hazardous condition or to clear the dangerous workplace of others.

A public employee does not forfeit their First Amendment protection when they arrange to communicate privately with their employer, rather than expressing their views publicly.

To establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination, a plaintiff need only show that facially neutral standards select applicants for hire in a significantly discriminatory pattern. If the employer proves that the challenged requirements are job-related, the plaintiff may show that other selection devices without a similar discriminatory effect would also serve the employer's legitimate interest in efficient and trustworthy workmanship.

Once a prima facie case has been established by statistical workforce disparities, the employer must have an opportunity to show that the claimed discriminatory pattern was a product of pre-Title VII hiring, rather than unlawful post-Title VII discrimination.

In cases alleging a pattern or practice of employment discrimination, the government must show that discrimination was the standard operating procedure of the defendant. Statistics may be used in proving discrimination.

An employee's statutory right to trial de novo under Title VII is not foreclosed by prior submission of their claim to final arbitration under the non-discrimination clause of a collective bargaining agreement.

In a private, non-class action complaint under Title VII charging racial employment discrimination, the complainant has the burden of establishing a prima facie case, which they can satisfy by showing that they belong to a racial minority, they applied and were qualified for a job that the employer was trying to fill, they were rejected, and the employer continued to seek applicants with their qualifications.

Author: Warren Burger

An employment practice that operates to exclude members of a protected group is prohibited if it cannot be shown to be related to job performance, even if the employer lacked discriminatory intent.

Author: Thurgood Marshall

When a public employee's false statements concerned issues that were currently the subject of public attention and did not interfere with the performance of their duties or the general operation of their employer, they were entitled to the same protection as if the statements had been made by a member of the general public.

Author: Robert H. Jackson

Rulings, interpretations, and opinions of agency administrators are not controlling on courts but provide a body of experience and informed judgment that courts can use for guidance. The weight of such a judgment depends on the thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors that give it power to persuade, if lacking power to control. Also, no principle of law precludes a determination that waiting time is working time under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The fact that an employer has individual contracts of employment with a majority of its employees does not preclude the employees from exercising their right under the National Labor Relations Act to choose a representative for collective bargaining, nor does it warrant refusal by the employer to bargain with this representative regarding terms covered by the individual contracts.

Author: Charles Evans Hughes

In recognizing the right to strike, the National Labor Relations Act contemplates a lawful strike. When a strike, even if it arose from unfair labor practices, is initiated and conducted in lawlessness by the seizure and retention of the employer's property, and the strikers are discharged because of their lawlessness, they do not remain employees under the NLRA.

A restraint or regulation of the liberty to contract is due process if it is reasonable in relation to its subject and adopted for the protection of the community against evils menacing the health, safety, morals, and welfare of the people. Also, in dealing with the relation of employer and employed, the legislature has a wide field of discretion in order that there may be suitable protection of health and safety, and that peace and good order may be promoted through regulations designed to ensure wholesome conditions of work and freedom from oppression.

Author: George Sutherland

Legislation fixing hours or conditions of work may properly take into account the physical differences between men and women, but the doctrine that women of mature age require (or may be subjected to) restrictions on their liberty of contract that could not lawfully be imposed on men in similar circumstances must be rejected.

Author: David Josiah Brewer

The regulation of the working hours of women falls within the police power of the state, and a statute directed exclusively to such regulation does not conflict with the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses.

Author: John Marshall Harlan

It is not within the power of Congress to make it a criminal offense against the United States for a carrier engaged in interstate commerce to discharge an employee simply because of their membership in a labor organization. A provision to that effect is an invasion of personal liberty and the right of property and is unenforceable under the Due Process Clause.

A U.S. court has no jurisdiction under the Thirteenth Amendment or other federal laws of a charge of conspiracy made and carried out in a state to prevent citizens of African descent, because of their race and color, from making or carrying out contracts and agreements to labor.

Author: Rufus Wheeler Peckham

The general right to make a contract in relation to one's business is part of the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and this includes the right to purchase and sell labor, except as controlled by the state in the legitimate exercise of its police power.

• Due Process
• Free Speech
• Health Care
• LGBTQ+ Rights
• Civil Rights and Discrimination
• Employment Law
• Health Care Law
• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• Intellectual Property
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials

The 10 most important employment law cases in 2021

Despite the coronavirus pandemic, HR professionals have had their fair share of employment law rulings to keep track of in 2021. We count down the 10 most important judgments of the year that every employer should know about.

10. Male directors dismissed to improve gender pay gap

Bayfield and another v Wunderman Thompson (UK) Ltd and others (employment tribunal)

The employment tribunal upheld two male directors’ claims after their advertising agency dismissed them in a bid to “obliterate” its reputation as a “Knightsbridge boys club”, in this cautionary tale for employers that are seeking to correct overnight the systemic issues that influence a gender pay gap.

Not long after publishing a “horrible” and “embarrassing” gender pay gap, the advertising agency held a conference to address the lack of diversity in which reference was made to the agency wanting to “obliterate” its reputation that it was full of “white, British, privileged, straight, men”.

Keep track of key employment law cases on appeal

In a decision that the tribunal found to be discriminatory and unfair, the advertising agency subsequently made two creative directors redundant. It selected two straight white British men for redundancy, both of whom had been among those who had complained about the presentation.

9. Failure to consider furlough affected redundancy’s fairness

Mhindurwa v Lovingangels Care Ltd (employment tribunal)

In one of the first cases to examine the furlough scheme, the employment tribunal held that the employer’s failure to consider the possibility of furloughing a care worker as an alternative to redundancy resulted in her dismissal being unfair.

More furlough cases

Furlough scheme and unfair dismissal: Employment tribunal round-up relx_copyright – This article is Brightmine content – Copyright 2024 LexisNexis Risk Solutions

In the early days of the pandemic, a live-in care worker was made redundant, despite her request to be furloughed. She brought a successful unfair dismissal claim, citing in particular her employer’s failure to consider her furlough request seriously.

The tribunal highlighted that the purpose of the furlough scheme was to avoid laying off employees because of the pandemic and this was exactly the type of situation that the furlough scheme envisaged. In the tribunal’s view, a reasonable employer would have considered if she could be furloughed to avoid redundancy.

8. ‘Stale’ training no defence for racist jibes

Allay (UK) Ltd v Gehlen (EAT)

In this case, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the employer’s diversity training was insufficient to amount to a “reasonable steps” defence in a claim of racial harassment committed by one of its employees.

Diversity and inclusion training

Line manager briefing: discriminatory behaviour

Line manager briefing: protected characteristics

Employers are liable for acts of harassment committed by their employees against other employees in the course of their employment, unless they can show that they took reasonably practicable steps to prevent those acts.

The EAT agreed with the employment tribunal that the “reasonable steps” defence was not valid here because the training that the staff in question had received several years earlier was “clearly stale” and required refreshing.

7. Absence of appeal not determinative of redundancy’s fairness

Gwynedd Council v Barratt and another (Court of Appeal)

In this decision, the Court of Appeal neatly answered a question that is frequently asked during a redundancy procedure: if a proper consultation process is followed, must employers still give employees the right to appeal against the decision to make them redundant?

Redundancy procedures

Model redundancy policy

Must employers give employees the right to appeal against a decision to make them redundant?

The Court of Appeal held that the absence of an appeal in an otherwise fair redundancy process does not, of itself, render the dismissal unfair. According to the Court of Appeal, it would be wrong to find a dismissal unfair only because of the failure to provide the employee with an appeal hearing.

However, the Court of Appeal did say that the absence of an appeal is one of many factors to consider in determining the overall fairness of a redundancy. In this case, the tribunal had been entitled to consider all the relevant circumstances, which included a lack of consultation as well as the absence of an appeal.

6. Office-based role discriminated against primary carer

Follows v Nationwide Building Society (employment tribunal)

While it is a non-binding first-instance decision, this case provides a timely reminder for employers that a non-disabled employee may bring a claim for indirect disability discrimination if they suffer a particular disadvantage because of their association with a disabled person.

More disability cases

Employment tribunal round-up: Reasonable adjustments in the workplace

The most likely scenario is where a primary carer is disadvantaged by their employer’s inflexible policies. That was the case here, where the employer’s requirement for a senior manager, the primary carer for her disabled mother, to be office based was found to be indirectly discriminatory.

The decision shows how important it is for employers to support employees with caring responsibilities and ensure that they are not treated less favourably than employees who are not carers. Employers should put in place clearly framed policies, such as a carers policy and a policy on requesting flexible working.

5. Menopausal symptoms can be disability

Rooney v Leicester City Council (EAT)

Law firm Linklaters has highlighted the rising number of tribunal cases in which employees are alleging menopause-related discrimination , prompting the firm to call for more awareness and support for staff experiencing it.

Menopause support

Model policy on supporting employees experiencing menopause

How to support employees experiencing the menopause

In this key 2021 case, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruled that an employment tribunal had wrongly decided that a woman suffering with menopausal symptoms was not disabled.

While the case law in this area develops, employers should ensure that line managers understand how menopausal symptoms can impact an employee’s wellbeing, performance and attendance. This will help line managers to have sensitive and supportive conversations with affected employees, as well as reduce the risk of discrimination claims.

4. Shop workers can compare themselves with depot workers

Asda Stores Ltd v Brierley and others (Supreme Court)

In this long-running equal pay saga, the Supreme Court confirmed that workers in Asda supermarkets are entitled to compare their pay with the pay of depot workers.

While this decision resolves the comparator issue in this case, the employment tribunal has still to decide if the claimants performed work of equal value and, if so, whether there are any non-discriminatory reasons for Asda’s failure to pay the two roles equally.

This case has been blighted by challenges on technical points of law at every turn. In its decision, the Supreme Court advised tribunals to avoid overly complicated assessments when considering cross-establishment comparisons and to discourage appeals, which may make it easier for claimants to overcome this first hurdle in an equal pay claim.

3. Uber drivers are workers entitled to basic employment rights

Uber BV and others v Aslam and others (Supreme Court)

In this high-profile case, the Supreme Court had little hesitation in finding that Uber drivers are workers and are entitled to receive the national minimum wage and paid annual leave.

The decision is consistent with the direction of travel of the case law on the employment status of gig-economy workers, with the Uber drivers being successful at every stage of the legal process when arguing that they are workers and not self-employed.

In recent years, rulings in this area have had a significant business implications on employers in the gig economy. Many gig-economy employers have had to rethink the terms on which they engage workers, offering them basic employment rights from day one.

2. Sleep-in care workers not entitled to minimum wage while asleep

Tomlinson-Blake v Royal Mencap Society; Rampersad and another (t/a Clifton House Residential Home) v Shand (Supreme Court)

In this long-awaited decision – the case was heard in February 2020 but the ruling published only in March 2021 – the Supreme Court found that sleep-in care workers are entitled to be paid the national minimum wage only when they are awake for the purposes of working, not when they are sleeping.

Covid case law

Covid-related employment cases: 10 key lessons for employers

Employment tribunal round-up: Employees raising health and safety concerns

The judgment was a bitter blow for sleep-in care workers, with unions, charities and campaign groups believing that the national minimum legislation covering sleep-in payments is out of date and unfair.

However, the Supreme Court’s remit in this case was narrow. Its job was to interpret the wording of the national minimum wage legislation to decide if it requires sleep-in workers to receive the minimum wage only when they are awake and “available” to work. According to the Supreme Court, the legislation is quite clear and issues of general fairness could not influence its decision.

1. Direct pay offers to workers during collective bargaining unlawful

Kostal UK Ltd v Dunkley and others (Supreme Court)

In the most important trade union case for years, the Supreme Court held that trade union legislation prevents employers from bypassing the union and making direct offers to employees while the collective bargaining process is ongoing.

In this case, the employer had reached a stalemate with the recognised trade union over a pay package and Christmas bonus. It wrote to its workforce directly, offering them a deal and threatening consequences if they rejected it.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

The Supreme Court made clear that a direct approach can be made after the collective bargaining process has been followed and exhausted. However, the Supreme Court warned that what an employer cannot do with impunity is to make offers to workers before the collective bargaining process has been exhausted.

HR business partner opportunities on Personnel Today

Brightmine is the UK's most comprehensive online source of legal compliance, good practice and benchmarking information made available to HR professionals as a single subscription service.

Tesco improves pay offer, but strike threat remains at some warehouses

Recruitment: power to remain with candidates in 2022, leave a comment cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

You may also like

Care assistant unfairly dismissed following murder charge, court of appeal upholds virgin media pension ruling, unwanted contact during sick leave: what are the..., gender-critical worker loses preferred pronouns case, overtly ageist employers pay the price for such..., labour’s changes to employment law: what’s the reality, executive called ‘old fossil’ awarded £3.2m in ageism..., christian wins discrimination claim after job offer rescinded..., employer wins appeal in travel time minimum wage..., social worker harassed over gender-critical beliefs wins £58k.

• Law of torts – Complete Reading Material
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – September 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 2 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 3 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 5 October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 2 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 3 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 – December 2019
• Sign in / Join

20 most important Labour Law judgements every HR manager should learn about

This article is written by Gaurav Kumar , from Surendranath Law College (University of Calcutta). This article depicts the landmark judgments pertaining to labour laws.

Table of Contents

Introduction

The Labour law is the area of law that regulates the relationship between the employer and the employee. An employer could be government agencies or private entities, companies, organizations, industry. It also mediates the relation between trade unions, employing entities. Recently, the Parliament of India passed three long-awaited labour codes compiling the 29 central laws. The three codes are:

• The Industrial Relations Code Bill, 2020 ; 
• Code on Social Security Bill, 2020 ; 
• The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code Bill, 2020 .

They received Presidential assent on September 29, 2020, bringing a major change in the arena of Labour and Employment Laws. Since, “Labour” falls under the concurrent list of the Constitution of India , so both the Parliament and the State legislature can make laws on the subject. Prior to the existence of newly formed labour codes, there were more than 40 central laws related to the subject “labour and employment”. 

The second National Commission on Labour (2002) found the existing laws were complex with anarchic provisions, so it proposed the consolidation of the existing laws. In this article, we will discuss twenty landmark judgements pertaining to the Labour Laws that every HR manager should learn. However, the new labour codes have not been enforced yet. It will be tentatively enforced by the upcoming financial year (April 2021).

Social Welfare Act

Workmen of m/s firestone tyre and rubber co. of india v. management, air 1973, sc 1227 air 1227, 1973 scr (3) 587.

In this case , the workmen of the Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company had a dispute with its employer as the employer had terminated its workmen on the basis of a Domestic Inquiry Finding. During the pendency of the case, the Industrial Tribunal Act was amended in 1971 and Section 11A was inserted conferring the power over the Appellate Authority to the Industrial Tribunal over the domestic enquiry into the arising disputes. 

The Tribunal decided in the favour of the employer, denying to have the retrospective effect of Section 11A. Aggrieved from the decision of the tribunal, the workmen moved to the apex court against the employer.

The issue before the Supreme Court was on the interpretation of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since, the section was inserted through amendment amidst the pending suit, the question in issue was whether the said section shall be applicable on the case which is instituted prior to the insertion of the said section.

The Supreme Court stated that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was a beneficial piece of legislation, enacted by the legislature for the betterment of the employees. The Court found the legislation to be a welfare one so it decided to apply the beneficial rule of legislation. It was further held that in case of arising disputes among the two parties, leniency will be applied over the view which will be in the best interest of employees. 

However, the suit was instituted prior to the amendment so the said section shall not be applicable in this case. It shall be only applicable to the cases which are instituted after the amendment in the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

Appropriate Government: Central Government as well as State Government

Steel authority of india limited v. national union waterfront workers, air 2001, appeal (civil) 6009-6010 of  2001.

In this case , the appellants, a Central Government Enterprise, along with its manager is having their business of manufacturing iron and steel products. The Company is also engaged in import-export of its goods through the Central Marketing Organisation, which is the marketing unit of the company. The company has its branches located in different parts of the Indian territory. The work of goods handling at the stockyard was provided to the contractors.

The Government of West Bengal vide its notification issued under Section (10)(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1989 prohibited contract labour at four specified stockyards in Calcutta.

However, the Government of West Bengal put the said notification into abeyance through the notification vide dated August 28, 1989, but further extended that period from time to time till August 31, 1994.

The contract labourers filed a petition before the Calcutta High Court seeking the direction for the appellants SAIL for the absorption of contract labour in their regular establishment in view of the prohibition notice issued by the West Bengal State Government. The primary question in the issue was who is an appropriate government with regard to the Contract Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1970.

The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissing the writ petition stated that on the relevant date of prohibition notification, the appropriate government was the “State Government”.

Aggrieved from the decision of the High Court, the appellant preferred an appeal before the apex court. The issue before the apex court was with regard to the correct interpretation of the term “appropriate government” as defined in Section 2(1)(a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.

The apex court held that any company which was being run on the power bestowed by the Central Government to the central government companies or its undertaking if fails to operate due to the lack of conferment power the company shall be considered to be an industry under the Central Government. The Court held that the appropriate government was Central Government under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.

State Government

Hindustan aeronautics limited v. workmen air 1975, 1975 air 1737, 1976 scr (1) 231.

In this case , the appellant Hindustan Aeronautics Limited is a company registered under Section 617 of the Company Act, 1956 . The Central Government purely owns the share of the company. This case is regarding 1000 workers who were working in the company’s repairing unit situated at Barrackpore, West Bengal. The major issues were with regard to the allowance of the education of employees, revision of lunch allowances and for the permanency of their job.

In this case the West Bengal Govt. referred to the dispute under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947

The Industrial Tribunal partly granted relief to the workmen. The appellants approached the apex court with the issue that whether the West Bengal government was the appropriate government to refer the dispute or not. The Supreme Court held that the appropriate government was the West Bengal government as the branch or industrial unit of the company was carrying out a “separate” kind of work in West Bengal.

The workers were being paid at the company and they were totally regulated by the officials of the company’s branch at Barrackpore in West Bengal. In such a case, if any kind of disputes or disturbances arises, the onus lies on the West Bengal government for the settlement of those disputes and maintaining industrial peace.

Industry Definition

Bengaluru water supply and sewerage board v. a rajappa air 1978, 1978 air 548, 1978 scr (3) 207.

In this case , the dispute was between the appellants Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewerage Board, its management and the respondents employees. For some kind of misconduct, the board had levied a fine over the employees and recovered the money from them. The respondents approached the labour court against such a fine under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 alleging that such imposition of a fine was against the principle of natural justice.

The appellant board put the contention that it was a statutory body serving the citizen, so it doesn’t come under the ambit of the definition of the term “industry” as provided in the Act. The labour court rejected the contention and held that the board comes under the ambit of “industry” as under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The board management aggrieved from the order of the Labour Court approached the High Court of Karnataka with a writ petition objecting that the board was not covered under the definition of “industry” as held by the Labour Court. The High Court of Karnataka rejected the objection, and upheld the labour court’s order.

The board management approached the Supreme Court with the issue of whether it was covered under the definition of industry or not. The apex court in order to declare the identity of industry, laid down a test to determine the activities carrying out by the industry This test was called the “Triple Test method”:

• Whether there is a systematic activity carried out on the cooperation between the employer and the employee for the purpose of production and services all the satisfaction that the human being wants and wishes;
• It is material to know whether there is an absence of profit gainful objective behind the corporation or venture;
• The major focus is on the employer-employee relation;
• If the organisation is for trade or business purpose it would not cease to be one based upon its philanthropic nature.

Hence, an organization having all the said elements not being a trade or business would be considered as an industry. The apex court held Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board an industry as per section provided under the Industrial Disputes Act. 

Individual dispute vs. Industrial dispute

Central provinces transport limited nagpur, v. raghunath gopal patwardhan 1957 air 104, 1956 scr 956.

In this case , respondent  Raghunath Gopal Patwardhan was working under the appellant “Central Provinces Transport Limited Nagpur”. The appellant alleged that the respondent stole some of the goods from the appellant’s company. A domestic inquiry was conducted by the company where the respondent was found guilty. He was dismissed on the ground of misconduct and gross negligence.

The respondent approached the Industrial Court for reinstatement, where the appellant contented the maintainability of the case as it was an individual dispute, not an industrial dispute.

The Industrial Court decided in the favour of the respondent claiming the dispute to be an industrial one. This position was upheld by the Labour Appellate Tribunal while deciding the appeal filed by the appellant.

Aggrieved by the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. The apex court held that the dispute was an individual one and not an industrial one. The court further added that the dispute would have been industrial if the cause had been taken by the union or a mass of workmen. 

The court was of the opinion that the definition of Section 2(k) of the Industrial Dispute’s Act was wide enough to include a dispute between an employer and an employee. Further, the dispute must attract the workmen’s support from the industry to become an industrial one otherwise it will be an individual one.

Employer definition

Hussainbhai calicut v. alath factory thozhilali union, air 1978, 1978 air 1410, 1978 scr (3)1073.

In this case , the petitioner was the owner of the factory engaged in the manufacturing of ropes. He had hired some contractors for the purpose of engaging workmen in his factory. Some of the workers were denied employment stating that they were not factory’s workers but hired by the contractors. 

The dispute was raised by the respondent in the Industrial Court against the denial of their employment. The Industrial Court decided in the favour of the workmen union and this position was upheld by the High Court of Kerala on an appeal filed by the appellant.  

The owner of the industry preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court stating that there was no employer-employee relationship between him and the workers as they were hired by the contractors. 

The apex court held that in an industry or a factory where the employees produce goods and services for the business of another person, then the other person shall be the employer. In order to find whether he is an employer or not, the factors of continued employment and the economic control upon the workers by the industry is to be taken into consideration. The court further added that if the livelihood of the workmen is directly dependent on the service provided by him in the industry, then it would not leave an effect on whether there is a direct relationship or not. One who has been in charge throughout the period shall be the real employer.

Workman definition

Arkal govind rajrao v. ciba geigy of india ltd, 1985 air 985, 1985 scr supl. (1) 282.

In this case, the appellant Arkal Govind Rajrao joined the respondent’s company as a stenographer-cum-accountant on 18 January 1956. After almost 10 years of time, the appellant was promoted to the post of assistant. However, in 1972 the company terminated him with the contention that he was not a “workman” defined as under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The District Commissioner Labour (Administration), Bombay referred the dispute before the Labour Court.

The Labour Court dismissed the petition with the view that the claimant was not a workman as he was carrying out administrative and supervisory work along with clerical work, so he could not be kept under the definition of workman as provided under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute’s Act. 

The appellant filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the aggrieved order of the Labour Court. The apex court was of the view that the appellant was a workman under the definition provided in Section 2(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The court held that the person would not be a workman if he is indulged in some supervisory activities.

The apex court further added that while adjudicating such matters one has to put in mind what are primary and basic duties along with the secondary duties of the person, as the secondary duties do not change the character and nature of the person. The court said that basic duties have to be considered first and it doesn’t affect the nature and character of the duties of the person.

National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. Kishan Bhageria, 1988 AIR 329

In this case , respondent Kishan Bhageria was working as an internal auditor. He was absent from the office for a period of time, so the company stopped his salary and sent him on suspension. The respondent filed an application but he was dismissed from the service.

The respondent filed an application before the Labour Court against his dismissal. The appellant contended that respondent’s claim was not maintainable as he was not under the term “workman” provided under the act. The Labour Court held that the respondent was a workman as under the definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

The appellant moved the High Court of Rajasthan against the order. The single bench judge of the Rajasthan High Court held that respondent Kishan Bhageria was not a workman as under the said act. The appeal was again filed before the Division Bench of High Court where the order of the Ld. single bench judge was reversed.

The management company moved to the apex court against the order. The Supreme Court stated that the fact in issue was whether the person was working for the managerial post or supervisory post, and for the purpose of deciding it, one has to look into the nature of the duties of the claimant.

The Supreme Court stipulated that a supervisor is a person taking decisions on the behalf of the company. The person can’t be held as a supervisor if he is merely reporting the affairs of the company and the management.

In the said matter the apex court held the respondent as “workman” as he was not engaged in managerial work or administration work. The Court also held that the person if would have been engaged in work of assigning duties among the other staffs then he shall qualify the criteria of being a “supervisor”.

Strikes and lockout

Syndicate bank and ors v. k. umesh nayak, 1995 air 319, 1994 scc (5) 572.

In this case , the major issue before the Supreme Court was whether the workmen were to get paid during the period of strike despite the fact that the strike was legal or illegal. The apex court decided the matter in the light of conflicting opinions rendered by itself in other decisions of the smaller bench.

The apex court held that the strike can be held illegal if it contravenes the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For the purpose of deciding the legality of the strike the Court had to take certain things into consideration such as; whether the demands of the workmen like pay scale, service issues were justified or not. The Court stated that in every case the detailed inquiry on facts and circumstances of the strike shall be taken into consideration.

The SC held that the strike is a result of a long struggle between the employer and the employee. It is the last weapon available to the employees in order to allow their demands to be fulfilled by the industry. The court stated it as an abnormal act and the Industrial Legislation doesn’t deny the worker’s right to protest and it seeks the concept of the strike to be regulated with the right of the employer to lockout and provide machinery for peaceful inquiry and settlement of disputes between them. The court ordered the employer to pay the workers for the “strike period”.

Excel Wear v. Union of India, 1979 AIR 25, 1979 SCR (1)1009

In this case , Excel Wear is a garment manufacturing firm/petitioner having 400 employed workers in its firm. The relationship between the employer and employee deteriorated as the workers became very militant and aggressive. The appellant was the management of Excel Wear. The workers of the company started doing unjustifiable strikes.

The petitioner approached the government-respondent for the closure of the undertaking. The Government disallowed the closure of the undertaking.

Aggrieved from the order of the government/respondent, the appellant approached the Supreme Court of India. The apex court held that the right to business is not equal to the carry on business as both things can’t go together. The court further held that the right to close the business is not an absolute one and can be restricted and regulated by the legal provisions. 

The Constitutionality of Section 25(o) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was scrutinized and the court found it unconstitutional. The said section didn’t require the government to provide any reasons for the closure of the business. However, in this case, as the workers had become violent, it was not safer for the employer to continue the business.

The Court added that the employer’s life can’t be put at risk.

Retrenchment

Municipal corporation of greater bombay v. labour appellate tribunal of india, air 1957 bom 188.

This question of retrenchment was discussed in this case. The term “retrenchment” means the termination of the employee by the employee for reasons other than awarding punishment by way of disciplinary action, as defined under Section 2 (gg)(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The section also states providing compensation to the employee. Retrenchment of employees is generally done so as to relieve them from a job in good faith.

In this case, the employee company sent the show-cause notice to the employer with regard to some misconduct as an inquiry was held. The employee was found guilty and thus unfit for the company. So, the company terminated him from the service.

The claimant filed the petition against the company for reinstatement and compensation as he claimed that the company had illegally terminated him. The Labour Court found merits in the case and allowed the claim of the claimant. 

Aggrieved from the order of the Labour Court the appellant approached the High Court of Bombay. The Bombay High Court held that there was no retrenchment in this case as the claimant was removed on the basis of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. The High Court further held that retrenchment can only take place when the employer is relieved from the services in good faith and not as a disciplinary action taken as a punishment.

Management of Kairbetta Estate, Kotagiri Po v. Rajamanickam, 1960 AIR 893, 1960 SCR (3) 371

In this case , Ramkrishna Iyer the manager of the appellant was violently assaulted by the workers which resulted in serious injury along with multiple fractures. The staff of the company was also threatened by the workers. The staff of the lower division denied going on work in the lower division as a threat to their lives. The management closed the company’s lower division for a period of time.

The respondents filed a complaint in the Labour Court under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as they contended that the work in the division was stopped without any prior notice. The said section deals with the adjudication of the disputes whether the conditions of the service changed during the pendency of the proceedings. The respondents also claimed compensation for the layoff as under Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court allowed the claim of the respondents.

Aggrieved from the order of the Labour Court the appellant approached the apex court. The apex court while deciding the issue made the distinction between the layoff and the lockout and held that the present case was “lockout” not “lay-off” as there was a work stoppage initiated by the management of the company due to the labour dispute. In the layoff, the management has to provide compensation if the work is stopped due to different reasons such as shortage of coal or anything similar.

The lockout was a tool available to the employer to force his demands against the employee. The Supreme Court held that in this case, the workmen had become aggressive and went out of control of the employer and not adhering to his request, so the employer can make a closure and such closure shall be considered as a lockout not layoff, hence no compensation shall be provided to the workman.

Suits of Employment

Indian express newspaper v. state of west bengal (2005) iillj 333 cal.

In this case , the appellant was Indian Express, a print media agency. The claimant was posted in the Calcutta office of the appellant the Indian Express. The claimant was transferred to Bombay from the Calcutta office but he didn’t join the office at the prescribed time. The appellant served him with show-cause notice and the domestic inquiry was conducted against him. Subsequently, the appellant terminated him from the service.

An industrial dispute had arisen and it was referred for adjudication by the Government of West Bengal/respondent. The appellant contended that the reference had no jurisdiction in the case, the appropriate government for the referral was not the Government of West Bengal, as the claimant was transferred to Bombay.

The dispute was sent before the Labour Court for adjudication, and the court held that the appropriate government was the Government of West Bengal.

Aggrieved from the order of the Labour Court the appellant approached the High Court of Calcutta. The High Court stated that the situs of the employment needs to be kept in mind as to where the dispute arose. The court held that the transfer order was made to Bombay and mere the presence of the termination order at Calcutta doesn’t provide the cause of action to the State of West Bengal for adjudication.

The situs of the employment is more important than the control of the employer over the employee for the purpose of referring to the dispute before the Industrial Tribunal.

Bata Shoe Co. Ltd. v. D.N Ganguly, 1961 AIR 1158, 1961 SCR (3) 308

A dispute arose between the Bata Company/appellant and the workers/respondent. The dispute went in course of the conciliation where the parties in disputes amicably reached a settlement. However, after the settlement, the workers went on strike. The company claimed the strike as illegal and irrelevant in light of the settlement done by the respondent. The company held the inquiry and dismissed the workers who had gone on strike.

With regard to the dispute of termination of workers, the conciliation proceeding was again preferred reaching an agreement signed by both parties of the dispute. However, in the whole process of conciliation, no conciliation officer was present.

The question in issue before the apex court was whether the settlement was done by the company and the workers were as per as provided under Section 12 and Section 18 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The apex court held the settlement at which the parties had arrived was according to the provisions of the sections provided under the Industrial Dispute Act and the settlement was binding over the parties as they can’t deny the terms at which they had arrived upon at the time of settlement.

However, the court further held that the second settlement done by the parties after the first one was non-binding as it was contrary to the provided provisions of the Industrial legislation.    

Execution proceedings

M/s kasturi and sons pvt ltd. v. n. salivateswaran, 1958 air 507.

In this case , the respondent/Salivateswaran used to work with the private newspaper company appellant- The Hindu. The respondent was a journalist who used to share the news with different journals, newsagencies. He worked in the said company on an honorarium basis. Contrary to the advice and instructions of the appellant the respondent left India for Zurich and came back after a short period of time. The appellant relived him from his services, under the arrangement he was supplying news to the company. On his return to India, he requested the company to reconsider his termination decision but the company refused reconsideration. The respondent approached the Labour Minister of Bombay against the order of the company under Section 17 of the Working Journalist Act, 1955 . The State of Bombay on receiving the application of the respondent appointed M.R Mehar (Retired ICS) as the second respondent for the inquiry in the application of the First respondent’s claim.

The appellant contended on the basis of the jurisdiction issue, but respondent no-2 found that it was having the appropriate jurisdiction to inquire of the matter as under Section 17 of the Journalist Act.

Aggrieved from the order of the appointed respondent the appellant filed a petition in the Supreme Court with regard to the arising jurisdiction issue in the matter.

The apex court in this case exhaustively dealt with Section 17 of the Working Journalist Act in this case. The court said that Section 17 of the said act was similar to Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court further held that Section 17 of the act, provides the mechanism for the recovery of the amount which is due from the employer towards his employee. However, the same can only be done once the due amount is decided by the Labour Court.

Equal work is equivalent to equal pay

Randhir singh v. union of india, 1982 air 879.

In this case , petitioner Randhir Singh was a driver working with the Delhi Police Force. He claimed that his salary was not as per standard with the other drivers working in the Delhi Administration. It was stated that the drivers of the Delhi Administration perform a similar function as the drivers of the other department.

The apex court while dealing with the matter said that the Constitution of India doesn’t include the provisions for equal pay, and so it can’t be kept under the ambit of the fundamental right. However, Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India provides the provision for equal pay for equal work for both man and woman, and it is included under the Directive Principles of the State Policy.

The apex court interpreted Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India in the light of the Directive Principles of the State Policy as provided under Article 39(d) and construed the principle of equal pay for equal work. According to such interpretation, the apex court ordered the Delhi Police to fix the salary of the driver in accordance with the other drivers working under the Delhi Administration.

Bonded Labour

Bandhua mukti morcha v. union of india, 1984 air 802.

In this case , the petitioner- an association wrote a letter to Justice P.N Bhagwati with regard to the poor condition of the large number of reinforced workers who were working in the stone quarries in some part of Faridabad, Haryana. The association described the brutal and insufferable conditions of the labourers and stated the different provisions of the Constitution of India that was not being actualized with respect to these workers. The petitioner in the letter referred to the name of the stone quarries and the point of interest of the workers to be implored under a writ as the different social welfare legislation provides for the same.

The letter of the petitioner was treated as a writ petition and the apex court constituted a commission for the inquiry into the truth of the matter as stated by the petitioner. The commission inquired into the matter and found the statement of the petitioner to be true as bonded labour existed there, and there were severe violations of the labour laws.

The apex court on the basis of inquiry made by the commission held the petition maintainable stating that it was the duty of the state government to make rectification as it failed to ensure proper compliance of the labour laws. The apex court further added that the workmen were being held under bondage and in pathetic condition, and it not only violated the Constitutional provision of Article 21 but also the human right laws. Such act of the stone quarries companies had curtailed the fundamental rights of the petitioner as Article 21 provides that the “right to live with dignity” is a part of the fundamental rights and the onus is on the State for proper compliance of such rights if it is curtailed.

Miscellaneous

People union for democratic rights v. union of india, 1982 air 1473.

In this case , the PUDR, which is an organization formed for the purpose of protecting the democratic rights of the Citizen, appointed three scientists for the purpose of inquiry to be made in the ASIAD Projects. 

Based on these investigations, the petitioner wrote a letter to Justice P.N Bhagwati which further transformed into Public Interest Litigation. In the letter, allegations of violation of various labour laws were stated and the apex court was requested to intervene in the issue. The letter was treated as a writ petition by the Supreme Court and notices were issued to the Union Government, Delhi Development Authority and the Delhi Administration.

The major allegations made in the letter were the violation of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 as the women workers were not paid properly and there was a misappropriation of money. There was a violation of Article 24 of the Constitution of India and the Employment of Children Act, 1938 and 1970 as the children below 14 years were deployed at the construction site by the contractors. There were also violations of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Violation) Act, 1970 which had resulted in the exploitation of the workers and denial of their various rights.

The apex court in this case found serious violations of the labour laws as the workers were not being paid adequately and there was a misappropriation of the funds. The court also found that there was a disparity in the remuneration paid to the male and female workers.

The court said that the workers were forced to work taking fewer wages against the minimum per-day wages fixed by the government. The court held that there were violations of labour laws in masse and the State was obligated to take action against such violation ensuring that the fundamental rights of the labourers are protected. 

Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C Mazdoor Congress, 1991 AIR 101

In this case , the respondent/D.T.C Mazdoor Congress were the regular employees working under the appellant-Company Delhi Transport Corporation. The respondents were alleging that they were being terminated by the appellant on the ground of non-satisfactory work.

They were terminated from their job paying reverence over the regulation of the transport corporation which allowed them to terminate their workers from the job by providing 1-month notice or 1-month pay in lieu of notice.

The matter reached before the apex court by the appellant. The apex court held that the regulation of the corporation of terminating their permanent employees without hearing them and just providing one-month prior notice or one-month pay in lieu of notice was contrary to the principles of natural justice, as there was no reasonable cause.

The court found the regulation of the corporation arbitrary, unreasonable and in violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The court held that the principle of audi alteram partem is a part of Article 14 and it is equally applicable over the regulations of the corporation. Hence, the termination of the employees was held unreasonable.

Marathwada Gramin Bank Karmchari Sangthan v. management of Gramin Bank, (2011) 9 SCC 620

In this case , Marathwada Gramin Bank is the respondent Bank. The provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 became applicable in the bank from 1979.

The respondent till 1981, complied with the provisions of the said scheme and after that, it formed its new scheme by establishing its new trust for the payment of provident fund to its employees. So, the employees were getting the provident fund in excess of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1981. The Regional Provident fund Commissioner vide a notification dated 29.09.1981 permitted the bank with regard to its own trust and compliance with the new scheme, but later on it cancelled and the bank was directed to comply with the provided statutory rule for the purpose of paying provident fund to its employees.

The respondent Bank issued a notice under Section 9A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 expressing its intention to discontinue the provident fund in excess of its statutory liability, but it continued to continue towards the Employee Provident Fund.

The Central Government referred the dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur. The Tribunal relied upon the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 held that the management can’t reduce the wages of the employees directly and indirectly to whom the scheme of the said act applies. The Tribunal further directed that the employees can draw an equal amount of money from the provident fund as earlier according to the scheme without any ceiling cap on their salary.

Aggrieved from the order of the tribunal the respondent bank filed a writ petition before the Ld. Single Judge Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court. The High Court reversed the order of the Labour Court and the same was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court.

The appellants filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. The apex court held that the action of the respondents was not contrary to the law, as they had continued to pay the Provident fund, but the contributions were made limited which was required by the statute to pay. The apex court further held that the employer can’t be compelled to pay more than the provided statutory ceiling.

The twenty aforementioned law judgements are the important ones that a human resource manager in every company needs to learn. The judgements have brought a new discourse in the jurisprudence of labour law. The precedent set by the apex court helps the judicial bodies across the country to decide the cases, if they face matters on similar issues. Since, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been stated as the law made by the parliament to protect and serve for the welfare of the employees against their employer.

• https://blog.ipleaders.in/laws-that-every-hr-should-know/

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/joinchat/J_0YrBa4IBSHdpuTfQO_sA

Follow us on  Instagram  and subscribe to our  YouTube  channel for more amazing legal content.

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

How would flexibility in labour laws help companies , key labour laws that every hr professional should know , kameshwar prasad and others vs. the state of bihar and another (1962), leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

How to kickstart your career as a corporate lawyer

Participants from more than 85 countries have attended our bootcamps so far

Register now

Thank you for registering with us, you made the right choice.

Congratulations! You have successfully registered for the webinar. See you there.

• Book a Speaker

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vivamus convallis sem tellus, vitae egestas felis vestibule ut.

Error message details.

Reuse Permissions

Request permission to republish or redistribute SHRM content and materials.

Top Employment Law Cases of 2024 (So Far): What HR Needs to Know

Even before the U.S. Supreme Court closed out its 2023 term and announced decisions in major cases on federal agencies’ and administrative law judges’ authority, 2024 had already provided a series of important employment-law decisions for employers. Attorney Louis Lessig, SHRM-SCP, a partner at Brown & Connery in New Jersey, highlighted several of these during his popular session at the SHRM Annual Conference & Expo 2024 in Chicago on June 26.

Here’s a summary of those cases and the lessons that employers should take away from each one: 

CASE 1: Employees Don’t Need to Show ‘Significant’ Harm for Title VII Claims

Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (U.S. Supreme Court, April 17, 2024): A plainclothes police officer was transferred to a less prestigious position that had the same pay but different hours and duties. She sued, claiming sex discrimination. A lower court tossed out the case, saying she didn’t suffer any significant harm to be able to bring the suit. But the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, saying the worker “does not have to show … that the harm incurred was ‘significant’ or serious.”

The lesson: This important ruling eases the path for employees to bring Title VII claims. While workers must show they suffered “some” harm, that harm doesn’t need to be significant.

“That’s not a minor thing. That’s a really big deal,” said Lessig. “Because all of the things that [employers] have been getting out of on motions for summary judgment are probably not going to happen anymore or not as frequently. Because now there’s a question of ‘What is some harm?’ ”

CASE 2: Carefully Vet Your Vendor Agreements

Mobley v. Workday, Inc . (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, April 29, 2024): In an ongoing case, a job applicant alleged that Workday’s artificial intelligence-based hiring algorithms discriminated against him and other applicants. A key question is whether software vendors like Workday, rather than just employers, can be liable in such bias cases.

The lesson: Employers should ask vendors how their algorithms are created and what they are specifically doing in the background. Ask if the vendor holds routine audits and what happens if there are discriminatory outcomes. Employers may be on the hook if vendors discriminate.

“If you’re trying to see where AI is going from a legal perspective and from a recruitment perspective, this is the case to pay attention to,” said Lessig. “This is going to impact your contracts. If you’ve renewed lately, you’re probably finding that they’re changing the contracts as to liability and who is responsible for what.”

CASE 3: Apply Paperwork Requirements Consistently

Jones v. Georgia Ports Authority (11th Cir., Feb. 7, 2024): An employee with post-traumatic stress disorder was fired after submitting an unsigned return-to-work letter that was deemed insufficient by the employer. The court tossed out the employee’s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuit, finding no discriminatory motivation in the employer’s decision to fire for policy noncompliance.

The lesson: This case highlights the value of ensuring consistent practices of making employment decisions, particularly when it comes to documentation for return-to-work (in this case, requiring a doctor’s signature).

“You have to make sure that [your policies] are known by everybody, including that medical professional,” said Lessig. “You have policies for a reason. And you’ve got to make sure you follow them, because that’s how we stay out of having problems.”

CASE 4: When Responding to Employee Claims, Silence is Golden

Su v. Bevins & Son, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, May 7, 2024): After an employee won a back-pay settlement, his employer retaliated by publicly criticizing the worker in social media posts, including encouraging people to examine the employee’s criminal background. The worker sued for retaliation and a district court sided with him, saying that free speech laws don’t give companies carte blanche to use social media to publicly shame employees who exercise their federal labor-law rights.

The lesson: Silence is golden when responding to employee legal complaints or legal victories. Make clear to your leadership to avoid any negative reactions to—or comments about—employees who file legal, safety, or labor-law complaints.

“The law under Title VII and the Fair Labor Standards Act is that if you do something that has a chilling effect on a future employee,” then you could be liable for retaliation, said Lessig.

CASE 5: FMLA Isn’t an Automatic No-Termination Zone

Cerda v. Blue Cube Operations LLC (5th Cir., March 19, 2024): An employee filed suit after she was fired for failing to accurately record her extended lunch breaks. She claimed the firing interfered with her leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) that she was using during the breaks. The court sided with the company, saying the worker didn’t follow company policy on giving correct notice of needing FMLA leave, so the firing was legal.

The lesson: Even when employees are taking FMLA leave, your company policies can still be upheld and employees can be disciplined for not following them. Also, Lessig noted that “there is no bright line” of wording that employees need to use when requesting FMLA leave. Workers satisfy that notice by providing sufficient information to reasonably alert the employer of a request for time off for a serious condition.

CASE 6: Clarify How You’ll Use Biometric Data

Deyerler v. HireVue, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Feb. 26, 2024): The court ruled that a hiring software’s AI-powered facial screening technology may violate Illinois’ biometric privacy law. The court said HireVue’s collection and use of biometric identifiers was not in compliance.

The lesson: This case underscores the legal challenges employers face with AI video interview technologies and biometric privacy laws.

“This raises important issues on what is ethical AI,” said Lessig. “The truth is, if we’re going to be transparent on what we’re doing, then perhaps there has to be a disclaimer about how we may—not necessarily will—use that information.”

CASE 7: Train Managers to Spot ‘Unspoken’ Accommodation Requests

Yanick v. The Kroger Co. (6th Cir., April 29, 2024): A bakery worker returned after breast-cancer leave with her doctor’s OK to return to full duty. But she struggled with certain tasks and was demoted. She filed an ADA lawsuit, and the court sided with her, saying the employer should have inferred that her comments about her physical struggles amounted to a request for an ADA accommodation.

The lesson: As with the FMLA, employees don’t need to say any magic words to request an ADA accommodation. Make sure your managers know what may qualify and to elevate those subtle requests for accommodations up to HR.

“She was telling them she had some challenges. She doesn’t need to say the word ‘accommodation,’ ” said Lessig.

CASE 8: Don’t Take Shortcuts in Your Drug Testing

Fisher v. Airgas USA, Inc . (6th Cir., Jan. 31, 2024): An employee out on cancer leave used a product called “Free Hemp” for relief of treatment pain. The hemp was not prohibited under company policy. However, when he was chosen for a random drug test and failed, he was fired. He sued and won. The court said the company could not rely on the “honest belief” doctrine without adequately investigating that his use of the hemp could have caused a false positive.

The lesson: The company should have consulted with its drug-testing provider about the potential impact of hemp use on the test results before firing the employee.

“When you’re doing this testing—whether it’s random or otherwise—you’ve got to take the time to figure this stuff out,” said Lessig. “If an employee tells you something, you’ve got to communicate that [to the drug testing company].”

Related Content

Why AI+HI Is Essential to Compliance

HR must always include human intelligence and oversight of AI in decision-making in hiring and firing, a legal expert said at SHRM24. She added that HR can ensure compliance by meeting the strictest AI standards, which will be in Colorado’s upcoming AI law.

A 4-Day Workweek? AI-Fueled Efficiencies Could Make It Happen

The proliferation of artificial intelligence in the workplace, and the ensuing expected increase in productivity and efficiency, could help usher in the four-day workweek, some experts predict.

Advertisement

Artificial Intelligence in the Workplace

​An organization run by AI is not a futuristic concept. Such technology is already a part of many workplaces and will continue to shape the labor market and HR. Here's how employers and employees can successfully manage generative AI and other AI-powered systems.

HR Daily Newsletter

News, trends, analysis and breaking news alerts to help HR professionals do their jobs better each business day.

Success title

Success caption

All Areas of Interest

Area of Interest Employment and Labor Law

Harvard Law School is a center of expertise and action in the fields of employment law, which defines the relationships between individual employers and employees, and labor law, which defines protections for workers when they act collectively, such as in unions. Students have the opportunity to learn from leading scholars, practitioners, government officials, and labor advocates about the laws that govern the quickly evolving experience of work.

From Harvard Law Today

Hls professors, elizabeth bartholet.

Morris Wasserstein Public Interest Professor of Law, Emeritus

Sharon Block

Professor of Practice

Duncan M. Kennedy

Carter Professor of General Jurisprudence, Emeritus

Josh McDaniel

Assistant Clinical Professor of Law

David Rosenberg

Lee S. Kreindler Professor of Law, Emeritus

Benjamin I. Sachs

Kestnbaum Professor of Labor and Industry

Cass R. Sunstein

Robert Walmsley University Professor

Laura Weinrib

Fred N. Fishman Professor of Constitutional Law

Visiting Professors & Lecturers

Steve churchill.

Lecturer on Law

Nancy Gertner

Senior Lecturer on Law

Tarunabh Khaitan

Visiting Professor of Law

P. David Lopez

Michael mccann, julie mccormack, employment law clinic, international human rights clinic, religious freedom clinic, sports law clinic, research programs and centers, animal law & policy program, charles hamilton houston institute for race and justice, john m. olin center: law, economics and business, labor and worklife program, harvard law school project on disability, program on behavioral economics and public policy, systemic justice project, related courses.

Modal Gallery

Gallery block modal gallery.

Labor and Employment: The American Worker

• Landmark Cases
• Search Tips
• Additional Resources
• Related HeinOnline Blog Posts
• Help Resources

HeinOnline Specialist

Labor Law Cases

Unique to this database is a chart of landmark court cases related to labor and employment law.

• Shows 24 landmark court cases, accompanied by their decision year and a brief synopsis of the case
• Each case is linked directly to the original full-text decision
• Includes cases from the U.S. Supreme Court and state courts
• Cases included range from 1842 to 2018

• << Previous: Timeline
• Next: Documents >>
• Last Updated: Mar 22, 2024 11:51 AM
• URL: https://libguides.heinonline.org/labor-and-employment

Key Legislation

Government agencies, judicial/administrative decisions, study aids & practice materials, current awareness, professional, advocacy, & research organizations, getting help, getting started.

Labor vs. Employment Law?

Labor law and employment law are related but the terms should not be used interchangeably. Labor law in the United States typically focuses on unions and collective bargaining between unions and employers. By contrast, employment law governs the employment relationship between individual employees and their employer. The two areas of law are closely related but are often distinct areas of legal practice.

This guide will focus on the laws that govern collective bargaining and labor relations in both the private and public sectors and research resources you may find useful. A separate research guide on employment law is in the works.

Federal Legislation - Private Sector

• Railway Labor Act May 20, 1926, ch. 347, 44 Stat. 577 (1926); 45 U.S.C. §§151-188 Regulates the labor-management relations of railroads and airlines. Created the National Mediation Board and the National Railroad Adjustment Board.
• Norris-La Guardia Act (a/k/a the Anti-Injunction Bill) The Act of March 23, 1932 (Ch. 90, 47 Stat. 70); 29 U.S.C. §§101-115 Established the right of employees to form unions without employer interference, prevented federal courts from issuing injunctions in nonviolent labor disputes, and made "yellow-dog contracts" (where employees agree to not join a labor union as a condition of employment) unenforceable in federal court.
• National Labor Relations Act (a/k/a Wagner Act) Pub. L. No. 74-198, 49 Stat. 449 (1935); 29 U.S.C. §§151-169 Guaranteed the right of private sector employees to organize, form union, and bargain collectively with their employers. Created the National Labor Relations Board.
• Labor Management Relations Act (a/k/a Taft-Hartley Act) Pub. L. No. 80-101, 61 Stat. 136 (1947); 29 U.S.C. §§141-187 Amended the National Labor Relations Act by adding a list of unfair labor practices (by unions) and other requirements and restrictions imposed mainly on unions.
• Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (a/k/a Landrum-Griffin Act) Pub. L. No. 86-257, 73 Stat. 519 (1959); 29 U.S.C. §§401-531 Regulates the relationship between a labor organization and its members and imposes certain reporting requirements and fiduciary obligations on labor organizations and their officers. The Department of Labor has exclusive enforcement authority for certain provisions of this statute relating to reporting requirements, trusteeships, and elections. Other provisions of this statute may be enforced by individual union members in federal district court.

Federal Legislation - Public Sector

• Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (a/k/a The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 or simply, The Statute) Pub.L. No. 95–454, 92 Stat. 1111 (1978); 5 U.S.C. §§7101-7135 Law establishing collective bargaining rights for federal employees. (Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.) Abolished the U.S. Civil Service Commission and created the Office of Personnel Management, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Federal Labor Relations Authority.

Federal Legislative History

• U.S. Federal Legislative History Library (HeinOnline) Background on the above federal statutes can be found in the collections made available by HeinOnline. The statutes may be searched by Publication Title, Public Law Number, or by the Popular Name of the statute.

State Legislation - Public Sector

• American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) A collection of links to state public sector collective bargaining laws.

National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is the federal agency charged with the administration and enforcement of the National Labor Relations Act. Consists of two branches: the General Counsel and the National Labor Relations Board. The General Counsel is granted investigative and prosecutorial authority and issues guidance to NLRB staff in the form of memoranda. The 5-person National Labor Relations Board is an adjudicative tribunal that interprets the statute and issues decisions that may be appealed to the US Circuit Courts of Appeal.

• NLRB Website
• Regulations (29 C.F.R. § 100.101-103.100) Found in Title 29 Subtitle B Chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations.
• NLRB Decisions and Orders The NLRB acts primarily through its decisions and orders, where it either agrees or disagrees with an earlier administrative law judge's ruling on the matter. An NLRB decision may then be appealed directly to the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal (as opposed to being appealed at the district court level of the federal courts).
• Reports & Guidance
• NLRB Legal Research Resources & Tools

National Mediation Board (NMB)

The National Mediation Board (NMB) is a federal agency designed to facilitate labor-management relations in the nation's railroad and airline industries. Specifically, the NMB regulates the procedures for evaluating requests by employee groups for union representation, acts as a mediator in disputes regarding the terms and conditions of employment, and interprets contract language it helped finalize. Matters in which the NMB has exclusive jurisdiction are subject to very limited review by federal courts.

• NMB Website
• Regulations (29 C.F.R. § 1200-1299) Found in Title 29 Subtitle B Chapter X of the Code of Federal Regulations.
• NMB Determinations

National Railroad Adjustment Board

The National Railroad Adjustment Board (NRAB) is a standing arbitration board that hears and decides disputes regarding the application and interpretation of collective bargaining agreements. Matters in which the NRAB has exclusive jurisdiction are subject to very limited review by federal courts.

• NRAB Website
• Regulations (29 C.F.R. § 301.1-301.9) Found in Title 29 Subtitle B Chapter III of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Federal Labor Relations Authority

The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) is an independent federal agency that governs labor relations between the federal government and its employees.

• FLRA Website
• Regulations (5 C.F.R. § 2411.1-2473.1) Found in Title 5 Chapter XIV of the Code of Federal Regulations.
• FLRA Decisions Includes FLRA Decisions, Administrative Law Judge Decisions, Solicitor's Briefs, archival decisions, and legislative history.

Office of Labor-Management Standards

Part of the Department of Labor, the Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) administers and enforces most provisions of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. Maintains copies of financial and other reports filed by unions, union officers, employers, etc., as well as union constitutions, by-laws, and collective bargaining agreements. Be sure to also check the website of a particular union, as relevant documents may be posted there as well.

• OLMS Website
• Regulations (29 C.F.R. § 400-499) Found in Title 29 Subtitle B Chapters II and IV of the Code of Federal Regulations.
• Agency Determinations/Decisions Includes Election Decisions, Trusteeship Decisions, and other types of decisions/determinations made by the OLMS.
• Criminal and Civil Enforcement Actions
• Online Public Disclosure Room Includes union reports, collective bargaining agreements, and other documentation.

State Labor Agencies

• US Dept of Labor links to all state labor offices
• Association of Labor Relations Agencies (ALRA) Links to U.S. state labor relations and mediation agencies and boards.

Agency Websites

Agency websites generally provide access to more recent agency decisions and determinations, though commercial legal research platforms may be easier to search. (See "Government Agencies," above, for more information and links to relevant agencies.)

Commercial Legal Research Platforms

• Bloomberg Law/BNA's Labor PLUS Bloomberg Law's Labor PLUS component (previously known as "BNA Labor PLUS") allows you to access an NLRB Elections database, Work Stoppages database, Unfair Labor Practice Charges database, Settlement Summaries database, Contract Expirations database, and a Collective Bargaining Agreements database. You can also find a Labor Arbitration Awards tracker and more.

Practice Materials

• NLRB Casehandling Manual Available from NLRB.gov website In 3 Parts (PDF format). Part 1 - Unfair Labor Practice Proceedings; Part 2 - Representation Proceedings; and Part 3 - Compliance Proceedings.
• NLRB Forms Available from NLRB.gov website (PDF format). Includes Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) Case Forms, Representation (R) Case Forms, and others.

• Onlabor.org OnLabor is a blog dev­oted to workers, unions, and their politics, founded by Harvard Law School professors Benjamin Sachs and Jack Goldsmith.

Professional Associations

• ABA Section on Labor and Employment Law The Section's members represent all perspectives of labor and employment law (i.e., management, union, plaintiff, neutral and public) and strives for a balanced discussion of employment issues throughout the world.
• Labor and Employment Relations Association (LERA) The Labor and Employment Relations Association (LERA) is where professionals interested in all aspects of labor and employment relations network to share ideas and learn about new developments, issues, and practices in the field.

Advocacy & Research Groups

• AFL-CIO (American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organization) Website for the largest federation of unions in the U.S. (consisting of 56 national and international unions).
• The Worker Institute (at Cornell University's ILR School) The Worker Institute engages in research and education on contemporary labor issues, to generate innovative thinking and solutions to problems related to work, economy and society.
• United Association for Labor Education The United Association for Labor Education is an organization of labor educators launched at the start of the century to promote and encourage the development of labor and worker education, to make labor education accessible to all working people, and to promote collective bargaining and the right to organize.
• Labor Research & Action Network The Labor Research and Action Network (LRAN) connects academics and labor practitioners to build workplace and economic power for working people in the US.

  Ask Us!  Submit a question or search our knowledge base.

Chat with us!  Chat   with a librarian (HLS only)

Email: [email protected]

 Contact Historical & Special Collections at [email protected]

  Meet with Us   Schedule an online consult with a Librarian

Hours  Library Hours

Classes  View  Training Calendar  or  Request an Insta-Class

 Text  Ask a Librarian, 617-702-2728

 Call  Reference & Research Services, 617-495-4516

• Last Updated: Sep 12, 2023 10:46 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.harvard.edu/law/labor_law

Harvard University Digital Accessibility Policy

Trending News

Related Practices & Jurisdictions

• Labor Employment
• Civil Procedure
• Litigation Trial Practice
• All Federal
• Massachusetts

As we turn the page on 2020, we offer a brief look back at several significant employment decisions over the past year.

At the federal level, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in  Bostock v. Clayton County , 140 S.Ct. 1731 (2020), recognizing that sexual orientation and gender identity are protected by Title VII.  Click here  to read more on the decision.

In  Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morressey-Berru , 140 S.Ct. 2049 (2020), the U.S. Supreme Court also weighed in on the scope of the ministerial exception under federal anti-discrimination laws. At issue before the Court was whether the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits courts from intervening in employment disputes (e.g., discrimination claims under the ADA and ADEA) involving teachers at religious schools. The Supreme Court ruled that “ [w]hen a school with a religious mission entrusts a teacher with the responsibility of educating and forming students in the faith, judicial intervention into disputes between the school and teacher threatens the school’s independence in a way that the First Amendment does not allow .”

Interestingly, the scope of the ministerial exception and its application remain open issues that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) will likely address in 2021. Keep reading for our  Cases to Watch .

Also at the state level, the SJC issued several important employment decisions. In  Hlatky v. Steward Health Care Sys., Inc. , 484 Mass. 566 (2020), the SJC affirmed a $10 million breach of contract damage award in favor of a medical researcher, finding that the damages in question, including the loss of her laboratory, equipment, and cell samples, were not too speculative and constituted the loss of her “life’s work.”

In  Parker v. Enernoc ,  484 Mass. 128 (2020), the SJC clarified that commissions are wages under the Massachusetts Wage Act (and subject to treble damages when unpaid) as soon as the employee completes the work. The SJC also suggested that treble damages may be available where an employer terminates an employee to avoid paying such commissions.  Click here  to read more.

Not all important decisions from 2020 came from the highest courts in the land. Below are a few important 2020 cases that may have flown under the radar, as well as a few to keep an eye on in 2021.

Restrictive Covenants

Ever since Massachusetts enacted statutory non-compete reform in 2018, courts have been casting a critical eye towards post-employment restrictions – even those not expressly covered by the new law (i.e. non-solicitation provisions). As the SJC re-affirmed in  Automile Holdings, LLC v. McGovern,  438 Mass. 797, 808 (2020), a post-employment restriction is “only reasonable, and thus enforceable, if it is (1) necessary to protect a legitimate business interest, (2) reasonably limited in time and space, and (3) consonant with the public interest.”

Below are a few recent examples where Massachusetts courts have refused to enforce over-reaching restrictions.

New Employer’s Solicitation Not a Violation by Former Employee

Townsend Oil Co., Inc. v. Tuccinardi , C.A. No. 04024 (Suffolk Sup. Ct. Jan. 16, 2020)

When Tuccinardi left his employment with Townsend Oil in 2019, he was bound by a post-employment restriction that stated he could not “solicit or attempt to solicit, directly or indirectly” any client or customer of his employer. Two weeks later, he joined Devaney Energy. After Devaney Energy sent out a mailer to potential customers, listing Tuccinardi as the contact-person, Townsend Oil sued for breach of Tuccinardi’s non-solicit obligations.

The court declined to enforce the restrictions. Noting that Tuccinardi was not involved in the mailers’ design or distribution, the court found no evidence that Tuccinardi engaged in prohibited “indirect solicitation.” Further, relying on the dictionary definition of “solicit,” the court held “it is not at all clear that Tuccinardi would violate his non-solicitation obligations by accepting [a call from a former customer] or explaining Devaney’s current offer to new customers.” The court also reiterated a well-established principle that a post-employment restriction is enforceable only “to protect the employer’s good will, not to appropriate the good will of the employee.”

Former Employer May Not Harass and Threaten Enforcement in Bad Faith

Eaton v. Veterans Inc. , 435 F. Supp. 3d 277 (D. Mass. 2020)

When Eaton was hired by Veterans, she signed a two-year non-competition and non-solicitation agreement. When she was later promoted, she was not asked to sign a new agreement. She was unhappy in her position and left for a similar position elsewhere. A few days later, Veterans called her and asked if she had accepted the new position. Eaton alleged that after she confirmed her new position, Veterans made no effort to ask whether she would be using their confidential information or trade upon its goodwill, nor did Veterans “identify any legitimate business reason that would support the enforcement of the non-compete agreement so as to preclude Ms. Eaton from continuing her work at [new employer].”

Instead, Veterans immediately called Eaton’s new employer and threatened to take legal action if it did not sever its relationship with her. Because of this call, Eaton’s new employer fired her. Eaton brought claims against Veterans, including for tortiously interfering with her new employment. The court allowed Eaton’s claims to proceed—and denied Veteran’s motion to dismiss—noting “the reasonable inference that [Veterans] threatened legal action in bad faith and did not seriously consider initiating any judicial proceeding against” Eaton or her new employer.

Fiduciary Duties

The law is clear that officers, directors, and high-level executives owe their employers fiduciary duties and must protect their employers’ interests, including by not actively competing with their employers during their tenure, even without an express covenant so providing. What is less clear, however, is whether fiduciary duties apply to employees farther down the chain of command.

Not All Managers Are in a “Position of Trust and Confidence”

MAP Installed Building Products of Seekonk, LLC v. Ivie , C.A. No. 1807 (Suffolk Sup. Ct. Apr. 17, 2020)

While still employed as a Production Manager at MAP, Ivie decided to start his own company to compete with MAP, and began taking steps to create a new company, including buying equipment, filing paperwork with the state, and soliciting other employees to come work at his new venture. The court held that notwithstanding his title as “manager,” there was scant evidence that Ivie, as a Production Manager, occupied “a position of trust and confidence” necessary to create a fiduciary duty. In the absence of such a duty, the court found that Ivie did not take any steps that were actionable by his former employer.

The court reiterated that there is no bright-line rule around which employees owe fiduciary duties. Any employee planning to compete with his or her employer should be cautious, but as this case illustrates, planning to compete can be done lawfully in certain circumstances.

Layoffs, RIFs, and Reorganizations

It is important to remember that neither a global pandemic nor an economic recession shield an employer’s unlawful employment practices. Rather, as the SJC has noted, that an employer may be required to “reduce its workforce does not mean that it is free to make its employment decisions on impermissible grounds: ‘even during a legitimate reorganization or workforce reduction, an employer may not dismiss employees for unlawful discriminatory reasons.’”  Sullivan v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. , 444 Mass. 34, 41–42 (2005). One recent decision from the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (“MCAD”) highlights a re-organizing employer’s obligation to take into account reasonable accommodations when transferring a disabled employee.

Right to Reasonable Accommodation in Connection With a Transfer / Reorganization

Cooper v. Raytheon , MCAD No. 11-BEM-01635 (Full Comm’n June 29, 2020)

Cooper, an employee with a traumatic brain injury, performed his job well – with certain reasonable accommodations – for eight years, at which point his business unit was reorganized and he was transferred to a new position where he was not provided accommodations. Thereafter, he was fired for alleged poor performance. After Cooper proved his case before an MCAD Hearing Officer, Raytheon appealed, arguing it had the right to alter or expand a disabled employee’s job duties.

On appeal, the MCAD conceded that, generally, an employer has such a right, “but of course that is not the full story.” As the MCAD pointed out: “An employer does not have the right, however, to terminate an employee with a known disability by transferring them to a different job with new duties without any consideration of reasonable accommodation.”

Cases to Watch in 2021

The scope of the ministerial exception.

Boyd v. Gordon College , 2020-P-0614 (Mass. Supreme Judicial Court)

At issue in this case, currently before the SJC, is the scope of the ministerial exception and whether it applies to all employees of religious institutions or only a subset. Professor DeWeese-Boyd is a social work professor at Gordon College (an evangelical Christian liberal arts college), and was denied a promotion to full professor after her vocal advocacy on behalf of LGBTQ+ individuals and against the college’s anti-LGBTQ+ policies. She asserted discrimination and retaliation claims under Massachusetts law. The College argues that it is protected from application of the state law because it is a religious institution and Professor DeWeese-Boyd is a ministerial employee. This argument relies on the ministerial exception under the First Amendment, which shields religious institutions from liability for employment discrimination against their employees who are “ministers.” Whether Gordon College is a protected institution and whether a social work professor is a “minister” are issues to be decided by the SJC.

Discriminatory Remarks – When They Become Actionable

Robert Collier v. Dallas County Hosp. Dist. d/b/a Parkland Hlth & Hosp. Sys. , 19-10761 (U.S. Supreme Court)

Under Massachusetts law, a single, isolated comment may be actionable as creating a hostile work environment. The issue is not numerosity but, rather, whether the discriminatory comment had such a humiliating, stigmatizing, and intimidating effect on the employee that it interfered with the employee’s ability to fully participate in the workplace. It is clear that some words are so offensive that a single utterance may give rise to violations of the Massachusetts anti-discrimination statute.

The standard under Title VII is less clear. At issue before the U.S. Supreme Court in  Robert Collier v. Dallas County Hosp. , is whether an employee’s exposure to the N-word in the workplace is severe enough to send his Title VII hostile work environment claim to a jury, and whether and in what circumstances racial epithets in the workplace are “extremely serious” incidents sufficient to create a hostile work environment under Title VII, rather than nonactionable “mere utterances.”

Unfair and Deceptive Practices – M.G.L. c. 93A in the Employment Context

Governo Law Firm v. Kendra Bergeron, et al. , SJC-12948 (Mass. Supreme Judicial Court)

Massachusetts has strong statutory protection against unfair and deceptive business practices,  see  M.G.L. c. 93A (“Chapter 93A”), which provides for both multiple damages and attorney’s fees awards. However, it has long been understood that Chapter 93A protections and remedies do not extend to the employee-employer relationship. A case currently before the SJC is seeking to revisit that understanding.

The case involves a Chapter 93A claim brought by a law firm against its former employees, attorneys who allegedly took electronic data from the firm while employed there. The case raises the issue of whether an employer may assert a viable Chapter 93A claim against an employee who engaged in unfair business practices (a) while acting outside the scope of employment, and (b) in direct competition with the employer.

Current Public Notices

Current legal analysis, more from sherin and lodgen llp, upcoming legal education events.

Sign Up for e-NewsBulletins

Labour Law - Notes, Cases & Study Material

In view of fast-paced global economies and ever-changing company culture, labour laws have assumed a greater significance than ever before..

In view of fast-paced global economies and ever-changing company culture, labour laws have assumed a greater significance than ever before. Labour law , as a subject, is of a constantly changing nature. It has also established its presence in the syllabus of business management schools as well as in Chartered Accountant, Company Secretary and works accountant institutes. It is also increasingly figuring in Master's courses like sociology, public administration etc.

Legal Bites' course on Labour Law consists of 3 well-rounded modules to help readers acquaint themselves with various aspects of labour and employment laws in India. Additional resources towards the end of the course also provide an excellent overview of the Indian labour system as well as an in-depth analysis of the intricacies of trade unions, minimum wage and industrial legislation.

Readers will be well-versed with labour , employment and industrial laws by the end of this course.

Click on the links below to read a detailed analysis of each topic:

• Introduction to Labour Laws: Scope and Development
• Overview of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947
• Development of Labou r Laws in India
• Development of Industrial Legislation in India
• An Analysis of Bonded Labour System in India
• A Critique on the suspension of Labour Laws
• Indian Trade Unionism and its Weaknesses
• Rights and Liabilities of a Registered Trade Union Explained
• Registration of Trade Unions in India | Step-by-Step
• Strikes And Lockouts: Concept, Explanation and Case Laws
• Right to Strike and Constitutional Validity
• Lay-off, Retrenchment and Closure: An Overview
• Mechanisms For Settlement Of Industrial Disputes
• Mechanism for Resolution of Industrial Dispute under Industrial Relation Code, 2020
• Factories Act, 1948; History, Objective & Applicability
• Minimum Wages Act, 1948: History, Objective & Applicability
• Minimum Wages Act, 1948: Important Provisions
• Case study on Maternity Benefit Act 1961: An Analysis

Important articles and study material on Labour Law – Click on the link to Read

• Case Analysis: Bangalore Water Supply v. R. Rajappa & Others 1978 AIR 548
• 10 Important Cases of Labour Law
• Occupier under the Factories Act, 1948
• Unfair Labour Practices in India
• History and Development of Trade Union in India
• Rights and Liabilities of a Registered Trade Union under Trade Union Act, 1926
• Object, Constitutional Validity and Salient Features of the Minimum Wages Act 1948
• Minimum Wages: Fixation and Procedure under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948
• Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 – A Critical Analysis
• Authorities & Notice of Change under Industrial Dispute Act 1947
• Penalties under the Industrial Dispute Act 1947
• Registration and Licensing as under Factories Act 1948
• Health and Safety Provisions under the Factories Act, 1948
• Penalties and Provisions under the Factories Act 1948
• Theories of Labour Welfare
• Trade Union Act – In Brief
• Payment of Wages Act – In Brief
• Workmen Compensation Act – In Brief

Labour Laws: Positive Impact on the Protection of Women

Labour Law Question Answer Series: Important Questions for Exams Labour Law Question Answer Series 1 Labour Law Question Answer Series 2 Labour Law Question Answer Series 3 Labour Law Question Answer Series 4 Labour Law Question Answer Series 5 Labour Law Question Answer Series 6 Labour Law Question Answer Series 7 Labour Law Question Answer Series 8 Your valuable feedback in the form of comments or any desired inputs are encouraged and always welcome. Every contribution toward a goal is valuable, regardless of how small it may be.

Admin Legal Bites

Legal Bites Study Materials correspond to what is taught in law schools and what is tested in competitive exams. It pledges to offer a competitive advantage, prepare for tests, and save a lot of money.

Related News

• --> Login or Sign Up

Shop by Author

• Sabrineh Ardalan
• Robert Bordone
• Robert Clark
• John Coates
• Susan Crawford
• Alonzo Emery
• Heidi Gardner
• Philip B. Heymann
• Howell E. Jackson
• Wendy Jacobs
• Adriaan Lanni
• Jeremy McClane
• Naz Modirzadeh
• Catherine Mondell
• Ashish Nanda
• Charles R. Nesson
• John Palfrey
• Bruce Patton
• Todd D. Rakoff
• Lisa Rohrer
• Jeswald W. Salacuse
• James Sebenius

Joseph William Singer

• Holger Spamann
• Carol Steiker
• Guhan Subramanian
• Lawrence Susskind
• David B. Wilkins
• Jonathan Zittrain

Shop by Brand

• Howell Jackson
• Ashish Nanda and Nicholas Semi Haas
• Chad M. Carr
• John Coates, Clayton Rose, and David Lane
• Ashish Nanda and Lauren Prusiner
• Ashish Nanda and Lisa Rohrer
• Ashish Nanda and Monet Brewerton
• View all Brands
• $0.00 - $2.00
• $2.00 - $4.00
• $4.00 - $6.00
• $6.00 - $8.00
• $8.00 - $10.00

Employment Law

• Published Old-New
• Published New-Old

OUR Walmart

Sharon Block, Lisa Brem, and Brittany Deitch

Worker Centers

The Case of the Unpaid Interns

Duncan Farthing-Nichol, with Todd Rakoff

Workers' Rights in the Hudson Valley (B)

John Coates and Sara Del Nido

Workers' Rights in the Hudson Valley (A)

Sheila Heen

The Case of the Encumbered Employee

• About SAFLII
• Terms of Use

South Africa: Constitutional Court

Mahlangu and another v minister of labour and others (cct306/19) [2020] zacc 24; 2021 (1) bclr 1 (cc); [2021] 2 bllr 123 (cc); (2021) 42 ilj 269 (cc); 2021 (2) sa 54 (cc) (19 november 2020).

SUGGESTED TOPICS The Magazine Newsletters Managing Yourself Managing Teams Work-life Balance The Big Idea Data & Visuals Reading Lists Case Selections HBR Learning Topic Feeds Account Settings Email Preferences Case Study: Navigating Labor Unrest Jorge Tamayo A factory manager considers whether to accept or resist union demands. Paulo Ferreira, the president of Luna Brazil, has an ambitious plan to turn around the dismal performance of the plant he oversees in Campinas. The wrinkle is, he needs the buy-in of the powerful local union, which is still smarting from a 10-year-old labor conflict and lately has begun to step up its demands and picket outside the factory. Headquarters, running out of patience with the dispute, wants Paulo to consider converting the plant to a distribution center. But that would mean hundreds of layoffs, which would decimate the local community that Paolo loves. In the corner office at the Campinas plant of Luna Motors, the dim light of a desk lamp illuminated a series of charts. Paulo Ferreira, the president of Luna Brazil, had been so deep in thought he hadn’t even noticed that it was now dark outside. Each line, curve, and number on the papers in front of him painted a disheartening picture of the plant’s performance: rising defects, increasing absenteeism, and a record high in vehicles lost to labor issues. The plant was no longer competitive within the larger Luna network. JT Jorge Tamayo is an assistant professor in the Strategy Unit at Harvard Business School. Partner Center More Blog Popular Who's Who Legal Instruct Counsel My newsfeed Save & file View original Follow Please login to follow content. add to folder: My saved (default) Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service. Find out more about Lexology or get in touch by visiting our About page. Analysis of Recent Employment and Labour Law Cases This Case Update provides a brief analysis of the recent judicial decisions delivered by the Supreme Court of India (SC) and High Court of Bombay, on certain labour and employment matters pertaining to maternity / paternity leave in surrogacy cases, wage claims by absentee employees and communication of performance appraisals to concerned employees. Surrogate Parents are entitled to Maternity and Paternity Leave In Dr Pooja Jignesh Doshi v. The State of Maharashtra and Another [Writ Petition No. 1665 of 2015, decided on 3 July 2019], the division bench of High Court of Bombay (Court) reiterated that even in case of birth of a child by surrogacy, the parents who have lent the ova and sperm, would be entitled to maternity leave and paternity leave, respectively. The Court reiterated the law laid down by the division bench of the Court in Dr Mrs Hema Vijay Menon v. State of Maharashtra [Writ Petition No.3288, decided on 22 July 2015]. Comment : The above cases dealt with matters arising prior to 1 April 2017, at which time the government, by way of Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 (effective from 1 April 2017), introduced an explicit provision in the Maternity Benefit Act,1961, providing that even a commissioning mother (i.e. a biological mother who uses her egg to create an embryo implanted in any other woman) shall be entitled to paid maternity leave of 12 weeks from the date the child is handed over to the commissioning mother. Further, the High Court of Bombay has also held that a commissioning father is also entitled to paternity leave. As of date, paternity leave is not statutorily provided in India, and is largely discretionary. Clarification on No-work No-Pay Principle In the case of Chief Regional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited v. Siraj Uddin Khan [Civil Appeal No. 5390 of 2019, decided on 11 July 2019] , the SC has reiterated that no individual can claim wages for the period that he/she remained absent without leave or justification. In the present case, the Respondent was relieved from the Allahabad branch of the Appellant to join the Jaunpur branch of the Appellant. However, the Respondent did not join the Jaunpur branch on the assigned date and was unauthorizedly absent from work for four months. Disciplinary enquiry was conducted against the Respondent and an order for reduction of basic pay by two steps was passed in May 2009. However, the Respondent continued to be absent from work until 2012. Consequently, the Appellant passed an order in June 2012, terminating the services of the Respondent. The Respondent preferred a series of writ petitions before the High Court of Allahabad against the above-mentioned orders. The High Court of Allahabad quashed the above-mentioned orders citing procedural lapses in the conduct of disciplinary enquiry, without specially directing the Appellant to provide back wages to the Respondent from 2009-2012. Upon refusal of the Appellant to pay back wages from 2009 - 2012, the Respondent filed another writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad. The High Court of Allahabad directed the Appellant to pay salary for the period 2009 - 2012, along with 18% interest. The Appellant preferred the present appeal before the SC against this order of the High Court of Allahabad. The two-judge bench of the SC held that, setting aside of the termination order does not automatically entitle the Respondent to the salary for the period 2009 - 2012. The SC differentiated the present case from a situation where an employee was dismissed from service and when such dismissal was set aside, he would automatically be entitled for back wages. The SC noted that since the Respondent was not kept away from the work on account of dismissal or by any order of the Appellant, the Respondent was not eligible to claim arrears of wages. Therefore, the SC partly allowed the appeal and directed the Appellant to consider the claim of back wages of the Respondent and pass appropriate orders with reasons. Comment : While the SC in this case did not conclusively determine whether the Respondent was eligible for wages or not, it referred to judicial precedents dealing with the principle of ‘no work no pay’. The SC referred to the decision of the SC in Airports Authority of India and Others v. Shambhu Nath Das [(2008) 11 SCC 498] wherein it was held that if a person was absent from work without authorized leave or valid justification, he would not be eligible for wages for that period. On the other hand, the SC has also referred to the judgement of Shobha Ram Raturi v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Others [(2016) 16 SCC 663] wherein the SC held that where an employer has restrained the employee from working, the employer cannot plead ‘no work no pay’. Therefore, the SC has attempted to reiterate that the principle of ‘no work no pay’ applies only in instances where the employee has voluntarily absented himself from work, and not where the employer has restrained the employee from attending work. Mandatory Communication of Annual Performance Appraisal Reports to Public Servants In Pankaj Prakash v. United India Insurance Company Limited and Another [Civil Appeal No. 5340-5341 of 2019, decided on 10 July 2019] , the SC held that all public servants are entitled to know their grades in an annual performance appraisal report (APAR). The Appellant was aggrieved by the fact that the entries in his APAR for two years were not disclosed, as a result of which he was unable to submit a representation for promotion at the particular time. The Appellant filled a writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad against such action of the employer i.e. Respondent. The High Court of Allahabad held that in the absence of an adverse entry or an entry below the benchmark, the failure to communicate the grade in an APAR did not result in an actionable grievance. The Appellant preferred an appeal against this judgment of the High Court of Allahabad. The SC held that as per the decisions of the SC in Dev Dutt v. Union of India [(2008) 8 SCC 725] and Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India [(2013) 9 SCC 566], it is mandatory that every entry in the APAR of a public servant must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period. Apart from ensuring transparency in the system, such disclosures also ensure that a public servant is given reasonable opportunity to make representations against the gradings if he / she is dissatisfied with the results. Further, the Union of India had also issued Office Memoranda on 14 May 2009 and 13 April 2010 seeking compliance by all ministries and departments. Moreover, on 19 October 2012, a specific communication was also addressed to public sector insurance companies. Therefore, the SC disagreed with the reasoning given by the High Court of Allahabad and held that non-communication of the entries in an APAR, whether good or bad grades, is a matter in respect of which a legitimate grievance can be made by the Appellant. Accordingly, the SC directed the Appellant to communicate the details of the APAR to the Respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. Comment: While performance appraisals are essential for every organisation to function efficiently, different mechanisms are adopted by the public and private sector, respectively. Performance appraisals in the public sector are guided by specific procedures and directions issued by the appropriate government and concerned departments, which are not applicable to private sector establishments. While there have not been judicial precedents dealing with similar issues in case of private sector employers, private establishments may adopt performance appraisal procedures to ensure transparency in recording and communicating the remarks relating to an employee and conformity to the principles of natural justice. The content of this document does not necessarily reflect the views / position of Khaitan & Co but remain solely those of the author(s). For any further queries or follow up, please contact Khaitan & Co at  [email protected] . Filed under Employment & Labor Khaitan & Co Bombay High Court Supreme Court of India Popular articles from this firm A public procurement conundrum: arbitration and mediation in procurement contracts *, supreme court holds that a child of an ‘invalid marriage’ is entitled to a share in the parents’ property in cases governed by mitakshara law *, the supreme court of india upholds that a woman belonging to a scheduled tribe (st) is entitled to an equal share in inherited tribal land and urges the central government to amend section 2(2) of the hindu succession act, 1956 which expressly exempts tribal women from the scope of the act *, transfer of sc/st grant lands: evolving issues *, supreme court reinforces that mere registration of a will does not prove its validity *. If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email [email protected] . Related practical resources PRO How-to guide How-to guide: How to investigate workplace harassment complaints (UK) Recently updated How-to guide How-to guide: Overview of workplace discrimination and harassment law (UK) Recently updated How-to guide How-to guide: How to avoid disability discrimination in the workplace (UK) Recently updated Related research hubs Call for Papers Competitions World Legal Legal Drafting Know Your Rights Labour Laws Top 20 Landmark Supreme Court & Important Judgments On Labour Law TOP 20 LANDMARK SUPREME COURT & IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS ON LABOUR LAW I. social welfare act, 1.    workmen of m/s firestone tyre and rubber co. of india v. management air , 1973 sc 1227.   In this case, the question for determination before the Supreme Court was as to what was the interpretation of section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This section stipulated the powers of the Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to provide relief to workmen who had been discharged or dismissed from service. Since the section was added recently by way of an amendment another question for determination was that whether this section would apply to the cases which had already been instituted prior to the new amendment or not. The Supreme Court held that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was a beneficial piece of legislation which had been enacted by the parliament in the best interest of the employees.  Since it was a social welfare legislation, therefore the courts have to adopt a beneficial rule of construction. It was further held that if two views arise in a case then the view which is going to help the employees is to be taken. Thus, the newly amended Section would apply to only the cases which had been instituted after the amendment had been brought in. II. APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT- CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 2.    steel authority of india ltd v. national union water front workers  air 2001 sc 3527. The facts of the case are that the appellant company was a central government company which was involved in manufacturing various types of iron and steel materials in various states of India. The State of West Bengal issued a notification prohibiting contract labour in some specified stockyards of the appellants at Calcutta. In the meanwhile, the contract laborers filed a petition before the high court seeking directions for the appellants to absorb the Contract Labourers in their regular establishment. The primary question for determination, in this case, was as to who was the appropriate government with regard to the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short CLRA Act). The Supreme Court held that any industry which was being run by conferment of power or permission granted by the Central Government to a Central Government Company or undertaking and if due to the lack of the conferment power of power it would not be able to operate then that company would be considered to be an industry under the authority of the Central Government. Thus the Supreme Court held that the Central Government was the appropriate government under the CLRA Act.  STATE GOVERNMENT- 3.    hindustan aeronautics ltd. v workmen air 1975 sc 1737. In this case the government of West Bengal had referred a dispute under section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication. The dispute was between the workmen working at the branch of the company’s workshop and the company. All the shares of the company were owned by the central government and it had an important role in controlling the industry. The industrial Tribunal granted part relief to the workmen. In appeal the competency of the West Bengal government to refer the dispute for adjudication was challenged by the company on the ground that it was not the appropriate government to refer the dispute. The Supreme Court while hearing the appeal filed by the Company held that the appropriate government to refer the dispute was the government of West Bengal since the branch of industry/company carrying out the work in West Bengal was a separate unit. The workers were being paid at the branch and they were directly under the control of the officers of the company at that branch. In situations where there was a disturbance of industrial peace and a number of workmen were working, the appropriate government concerned for raising the dispute and maintaining industrial peace was the West Bengal government. III.  DEFINITION OF INDUSTRY 4. bangalore water supply and sewerage board v. a rajappa air 1978 sc 548. In this case, the dispute was between employees of the Bangalore water supply and sewerage board and its management. The petitioners raised an objection before the Labour Court that it was not an industry and therefore the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to try the case. The Labour Court rejected the objection and aggrieved by it the Management filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court too rejected the objection and thus the Management filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. While hearing the Appeal, the Supreme Court laid down a test for declaring an entity as an Industry. It was held that in order to qualify as an industry the following requisites have to be fulfilled: when there is a systematic activity which is carried on cooperation between the employer and employee for the production and distribution of goods and services all the satisfaction on the human wants and wishes; It is in material as to whether there is an absence of profit gainful objective behind the venture India public joint other sector; the focus is on the nature of activity special emphasis on the employer-employee relation; if the organization is a trade or business then it would not cease to be one based upon its philanthropic nature. Thus, all organized activities having the above-mentioned elements not being a trade or business would be considered as an industry. Thus the Supreme Court held that the Bangalore Water Supply was an industry as per the Act.  IV. INDIVIDUAL DISPUTE V. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE 5. central provinces transport services ltd, nagpur v. raghunath gopal, patwaardhan air 1957 sc 104. In this case, the Respondent worked with the Appellant Company. It was alleged by the Appellants that some goods were stolen by the Respondent and in the domestic inquiry conducted by the Appellant Company; he was found guilty and dismissed on the grounds of misconduct and gross negligence. The Respondent filed a case before the Industrial Court for reinstatement and it was argued by the appellant that the case was not maintainable since it was not an industrial dispute but an individual dispute. The Industrial Court gave a finding in favor of the Respondent and when an appeal was filed by the Appellant before the Labour Appellate Tribunal, it confirmed the findings of the Industrial Court. Thus aggrieved by the order the Appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that a dispute between an employer and an individual employee is not an industrial dispute. However, it may become an industrial dispute if the cause is taken up by the union or a number of workmen. It was held that the language of section 2 (k) of the Industrial Dispute’s Act is wide enough to bring within its ambit a dispute between an employer and a single employee. In order to do so the individual dispute would have to gather support and backing from a substantial number of workmen from the industry. If the cause is not supported by a number of workmen then the same would be an individual dispute and not an Industrial Dispute.  V.   Definition of EMPLOYER- 6.    hussainbhai v. alath factory tezhilali union air 1978 sc 1410. In this case, the Petitioner was the owner of a factory and he was involved in the business of manufacturing ropes. He had hired independent contractors who had in turn hired workmen for carrying out the work. A dispute was raised by the Respondent which was a Trade Union against the petitioner on the ground that certain workers were refused work by the Petitioner. The Industrial Tribunal gave an award in favour of the workmen and it was also affirmed by the High Court of Kerala. An appeal was filed by the owner before the Supreme Court and it was argued by him that there was no employer employee relation between him and the workmen. The Supreme Court while hearing the appeal held that in cases where the employees produce goods and services for the business of another person, then this another person would be an employer. In order to find out as to whether he is an employer or not it has to be seen that whether there is economic control upon the workers and whether there was continued employment. If the livelihood of the workmen depends on the services rendered then the absence of a direct relationship or the existence of a contractor will not make a difference. The real employer would be the one who had been in charge throughout. VI. DEFINITION OF WORKMAN- 7. arkal govind rajrao v. ciba geigy of india ltd. (1985) 3 scc 371. In this case the Appellant was working as a stenographer and an accountant with the Respondent Company. He was later promoted as an assistant and subsequently his services were terminated. He filed a dispute and it was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court dismissed the reference on the grounds that the claimant was not a workman since he was doing administrative and supervisory work along with clerical work and therefore he was employed in an officer cadre. The Supreme Court while hearing the appeal filed by the Appellant held that the appellant was indeed a workman as per the definition enshrined in Sec 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was further held that person would not to be a workman if he is having certain supervisory duties. The Supreme Court observed that while adjudication on such a question court has to keep in mind as to what are the primary and basic functions of the person. It has to be further observed as to what are the additional duties since the additional duties cannot change the nature and character of the employee. The Supreme Court held that the basic duties have to be considered first and the additional duties will have no bearing on the nature and character of the duties of a person. 8.National Engineering Industries Ltd.  v. Kishan Bhageria, 1988 AIR 329 In this case, the Respondent/claimant was working as an internal auditor and he started absenting himself for a brief period of time. His salary was stopped and he was also placed on suspension by the management/appellant. The claimant filed an application for being given the salary and subsequently, he was dismissed from service. The management objected that the claim was not maintainable since the claimant was not a workman. The Labour Court held that the Respondent was a workman, however a Single Judge Bench of the Rajasthan High Court held that the Respondent was not a workman. The Appellant filed an appeal before a division bench of the High Court and the High Court reversed the order of the Single Judge bench and held that the Respondent was a workman. Thus aggrieved by the order, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. It was held by the Supreme Court that in order to find that whether a person was working in a managerial or supervisory capacity is a question of fact and as such the nature of his duties has to be seen. It was observed that a supervisor is a person who takes decisions on behalf of the company. It was further held that the person who was merely reporting the affairs of the company and overall work to the management was not a supervisor. It was further held that the claimant in the instant matter was a workman since he was not employed in a managerial or administrative work. It was clarified that where person is vested with the power of assigning duties and distributing the work amongst other employees would qualify as a supervisor.   VII. STRIKES AND LOCKOUT- 9.syndicate bank v. k. umesh nayak, air 1995 sc 319. In this case, the question before the Supreme Court was whether the workmen are entitled for wages for the period of Strike irrespective of the fact that is legal or illegal. The matter was settled by the Supreme Court in light of the conflicting opinions rendered by the Supreme Court itself in three other decisions of a smaller bench. It was held by the Supreme Court that a strike will be illegal if it contravenes the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. A strike may be justified or unjustified depending upon the nature of demands of the workman, the service conditions etc. At the preliminary instance, a detailed inquiry in this regard has to be first taken depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It was further held that a Strike is the result of the long struggle between the employers and employees and it is a weapon of last resort and withdraws the labour from working in the Enterprise. It is an abnormal act and therefore the Industrial Disputes Act seeks to regulate the concept of Strike while not denying the right of the workmen to carry out a strike.  10. Excel Wear V. Union of India AIR 1979 SC 25 In this case, the relation between the Management/Appellant and its employees deteriorated severely. The workman working under the management became very aggressive and started indulging in unjustifiable or illegal strikes. It became impossible for the petitioners to carry out the business and they duly applied to the Government/Respondent for the closure of the undertaking. The government refused to allow the closure of the undertaking. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Government/Respondent, the Appellant’s challenged it. It was held by the Supreme Court that the right to business is not the same to start or carry on a business; it would be not justified to place these two at the same footing. If a person does not start a business then he cannot be compelled to begin it full stop that the right to close down a business is not an absolute one can be restricted and regulated by way of the law. The constitutional validity of section 25 ‘O’ of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was scrutinized and it was found to be unconstitutional it did not require the Giving of reasons by the government for refusing close down a business it was held that it would not be practical to carry out business even when the employer cannot manage the same and it was not safe for him to do so. They cannot be put to risk at the cost of their life and property.  VIII. RETRENCHMENT- 11.municipal corporation of greater bombay v. labour appellate tribunal of india air 1957 bom 188. In this case, the question of retrenchment was discussed. Retrenchment basically means the termination of an employee by the employer for any reason, other than punishment for a disciplinary action. The objective behind retrenchment is the relieving of an employee based on good faith. The concept of retrenchment is defined in section 2 (oo) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and compensation is to be given to the retrenched employee. In this case, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the claimant by the Appellant Company for some misconduct an inquiry was held. It was found that he was not a fit person to be kept in the establishment. As such his services were terminated by the Appellant. Aggrieved by the order of termination the claimant filed a case before the Labour Court asking for his reinstatement and compensation since he was illegally discharged. The Labour Court allowed the claim filed by the claimant and thus aggrieved by the order the Appellant filed a petition before the Bombay High Court. It was held by the Bombay High Court that since the services of the claimant were terminated in lieu of the disciplinary proceedings and his misconduct, thus there was no retrenchment in the instant case. Therefore no question of compensation arose. Retrenchment happens when a person is relieved in good faith and not as a punishment for disciplinary action. IX. LAY OFF- 12. management of kairbetta estate, kotagiri po v. rajamanickam air 1960 sc 893. The facts of the case are that the Manager of the Management/Appellant Company seriously injured by the workman and the other workers of the lower division threatened members of the management of dire consequences if they worked in that division. Due to this the management closed the division for a brief period of time. After this conciliation proceedings were started before the labour officer and the division was reopened. The Workers/Respondents claimed compensation for layoff u/s 25C of the Industrial Disputes Act and thus filed a claim for it before the Labour Court. The Labour Court allowed the claim and hence aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, the appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court before deciding the dispute made a distinction between layoff and Lockout. It was held that in the present case it was a lock out and not a layoff. In a lay off the management is supposed to provide compensation in the absence of work due to shortage of coal etc. Whereas a lock out is a tool which is available the employer to in force his demands just like a strike is used by the employees. It was held by the Supreme Court that in a situation where the workmen have gone out of control and are not adhering to the request of the employer then a closure of the division would be considered as a Lockout and not a layoff and therefore no compensation is to be paid to the workmen. X. SITUS OF EMPLOYMENT- 13. indian express newspaper  v state of west bengal (2005) iillj 333 cal. In this case, the claimant was posted at the Calcutta office of Indian Express/Appellant and he was transferred to Bombay. He did not comply with the transfer order and subsequently, he did not join his services. A Show Cause was issued to him by the Appellant and a domestic inquiry was conducted and subsequently, his services were terminated. An Industrial dispute was raised which was referred for adjudication by the Government of West Bengal/Respondent. The Appellant argued that the Reference was without jurisdiction since the appropriate government to refer the dispute was not the Government of West Bengal since the services of the claimant were transferred to Bombay. The Labour Court held that the appropriate government was the government of West Bengal. Thus aggrieved by the order the Appellant filed an appeal before the High Court of Calcutta. While hearing the appeal the High Court held that the situs of employment needs to be seen and it also needs to be kept in mind as to where the dispute arose. It was held that the order of transfer was made to Bombay and just because the order of termination was presented at Calcutta cannot give a cause of action to the state of West Bengal to refer the dispute for adjudication. The control over the employee does not matter solely but the last situs of employment is important before referring a dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. XI.  SETTLEMENT- 14. bata shoe co. ltd. v. d.n. ganguly, air 1961 sc 1158. The facts of the case are that during the course of conciliation proceedings with regard to a dispute between the Management/Appellant and its Workmen/Respondent a settlement was arrived at between the parties. In spite of the settlement, some of the Workmen went on strike. The management took action against these workmen on the ground that the strike was illegal in light of the settlement and dismissed them after holding an enquiry. Conciliation proceedings were started with regard to the dismissal of the workman and an agreement was entered into between the parties, however, not before the conciliation officer and without his help. While adjudicating on the question of a settlement arrived at as per the provisions of sec 12 and 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Supreme Court held that a settlement which is arrived at according to the provisions, then the same is binding on the parties to the settlement and they cannot refuse to adhere to the terms and conditions of the binding settlement. It was further held that in the present case the second settlement will not be binding since it did not happen as per the provisions of the law.  XII. EXECUTION PROCEEDING 15. m/s. kasturi & sons pvt ltd. v. n. salivateeswaran, 1958 air 507 sc. In this case, the Respondent worked with the newspaper Hindu/Appellant and after a certain while he was terminated from his duties. The Respondent asked the Appellant to reconsider its decision of termination and on the refusal of the management he preferred an application to the Labour Minister under section 17 of the Working Journalist Act, 1955. The State of Bombay appointed a person as an authority under section 17 to conduct an enquiry for the same. The Appellant raised a preliminary issue on the point of Jurisdiction in front of the authority. The authority decided on the issue and held that it was having the Jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter under section 17 of the working journalist act. Aggrieved by the order, the Appellant filed a writ before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in this case, dealt exhaustively with section 17 of the working journalist act. It was held that section 17 was similar to Section 33 C of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was further held that sec 17 provides for a mechanism to recover an amount which is due from the employer however the same can only be done once the amount due is decided by the Labour Court. XIII. EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK 16. randhir singh v. union of india air 1982 sc 879. In this case, the petitioner was a driver in the Delhi Police Force, and he claimed that his salary was not at par with the salary of other drivers employed in the Delhi administration. It was submitted by him that the drivers of the Delhi Police carry out the same functions as drivers of the other departments. It was held by the Supreme Court that the principle of equal pay for equal work was not explicitly provided for in the constitution and therefore it was not accorded the status of a fundamental right. However article 39 (d) of the Constitution which provides for equal pay for equal work for both men and women is accorded the status of a directive principle of State Policy. Therefore by interpreting Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution along with the Preamble and A. 39 (d) it was held that the principle of equal pay for equal work can be construed from these articles.As such directions were given to fix the salary of the drivers of the Delhi Police Force at par with the salary of the other drivers of the Delhi Administration. XIV.  BONDED LABOUR 17. bandhua mukti morcha v. union of india 1984 air 802. In this case, a letter was addressed to Justice Bhagwati by an organization on the grounds that there were many stone quarries in the state of Haryana where bonded labour existed and the workmen were being made to work under inhuman conditions. The letter was treated as a writ petition and a commission was constituted in order to find out the truth. The commission in its report agreed with the organization and stated that indeed cases of bonded labour existed and severe violation of the labour laws was being committed. It was held by the Supreme Court that the petition was maintainable and the state government was under an obligation to rectify it’s failure of ensuring the compliance of the labour laws. It was further held that the workmen were being held in bondage and were being made to work in miserable conditions and as such the fundamental rights of the workmen were being curtailed. It was held that the right to live with dignity is a part and parcel of article 21 and the same is to be ensured by the state. XV.  MISCELLANEOUS- 18. people’s union for democratic rights v. union of india, 1982 air 1473 sc. In this case a Public Interest Litigation was filed by PUCL before the Supreme Court on the basis of a report made by three social scientist on the workers who were engaged for various projects in relation to the Asian games. They had found in their report that the Labour laws were being contravened by the contractors and the State. It was held by the Supreme Court that the contractors who had been hired by the government had committed serious violations of the labour laws. It was observed that the minimum wages were not being paid to the workers and there was also disparity in the wages which was being given to the male and female workers. It was held that the workers were being forced into labour by working under a compulsion to take wages lesser than the minimum rate fixed the government. As such the state was failing in its duty to ensure that the social welfare legislations were being complied with. It was held that it is an obligation on the state to ensure and take measures for the purpose of tackling such violations and ensuring that the fundamental right is not transgressed. 19.  Delhi Transport Corporation v D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, 1991 AIR 101 In this case the Respondents were regular employees of the Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd. They were terminated from service by the Appellants on the ground that their work was not satisfactory and that they were also not allowing the other members to perform their duties. Their jobs were terminated by placing reliance on a regulation of the Corporation which allowed the termination of the job by providing 1 months notice or 1 months notice pay in lieu of the notice. The High Court struck down the regulation since it vested unbridled power with the management. The matter was appealed before the Supreme Court and it was held that the regulation of the corporation to terminate permanent employee by giving them a notice or one month’s pay in lieu of notice without assigning a reason or giving an opportunity of hearing to the employee was against the principles of natural justice. It was found to be violative of article 14 and it was arbitrary. It was held that the principle of Audi Alteram Partem is a part and parcel of Article 14 and the same has to be applied by the Corporation. 20. Marathwada Gramin Bank Karamchari Sanghatana v. Management of Gramin Bank, (2011) 9 SCC 620 ThE provident fund contributions have to be made by the Employer where the person is having basic wages up to 15,000. The question before the Supreme Cour, in this case,e was that whether an employer can limit the contribution of provident fund for employees who were getting paid over and above the statutory ceiling. In this cas,e the Respondent was a bank which had reduced the contributions to the provident fund and restricted itself as per the statutory norm. The Appellants raised a dispute before Industrial Tribunal due to reduction in the contribution made by the Appellant. The Industrial Tribunal found the act of the Respondent as a contravention of the law. The Respondent filed a petition before the Nagpur High Court challenging the order of the Tribunal. The High Court reversed the order and the same was also upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court. Thus the Appellants filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the action of the Respondents was not in contravention of the law since they had not stopped the contributions but rather they had limited the contributions to the amount which was required by the statute to be paid. It was further held that an employer cannot be compelled to pay contributions over the statutory ceiling. RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR Landmark judgment on therapy centers passed by the kerala high court, pm modi on ayodhya verdict- a golden chapter in indian judicial history, ayodhya verdict out- supreme court orders construction of a temple on disputed site and muslims to get 5 acres of land, leave a reply. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Analysis Of Recent Employment And Labour Law Cases Contributor. This Case Update provides a brief analysis of the recent judicial decisions delivered by the Supreme Court of India (SC) and High Court of Bombay, on certain labour and employment matters pertaining to maternity / paternity leave in surrogacy cases, wage claims by absentee employees and communication of performance appraisals to concerned employees. Surrogate Parents are entitled to Maternity and Paternity Leave In Dr Pooja Jignesh Doshi v. The State of Maharashtra and Another [Writ Petition No. 1665 of 2015, decided on 3 July 2019], the division bench of High Court of Bombay (Court) reiterated that even in case of birth of a child by surrogacy, the parents who have lent the ova and sperm, would be entitled to maternity leave and paternity leave, respectively. The Court reiterated the law laid down by the division bench of the Court in Dr Mrs Hema Vijay Menon v. State of Maharashtra [Writ Petition No.3288, decided on 22 July 2015]. Comment : The above cases dealt with matters arising prior to 1 April 2017, at which time the government, by way of Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 (effective from 1 April 2017), introduced an explicit provision in the Maternity Benefit Act,1961, providing that even a commissioning mother (i.e. a biological mother who uses her egg to create an embryo implanted in any other woman) shall be entitled to paid maternity leave of 12 weeks from the date the child is handed over to the commissioning mother. Further, the High Court of Bombay has also held that a commissioning father is also entitled to paternity leave. As of date, paternity leave is not statutorily provided in India, and is largely discretionary. Clarification on No-work No-Pay Principle In the case of Chief Regional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited v. Siraj Uddin Khan [Civil Appeal No. 5390 of 2019, decided on 11 July 2019] , the SC has reiterated that no individual can claim wages for the period that he/she remained absent without leave or justification. In the present case, the Respondent was relieved from the Allahabad branch of the Appellant to join the Jaunpur branch of the Appellant. However, the Respondent did not join the Jaunpur branch on the assigned date and was unauthorizedly absent from work for four months. Disciplinary enquiry was conducted against the Respondent and an order for reduction of basic pay by two steps was passed in May 2009. However, the Respondent continued to be absent from work until 2012. Consequently, the Appellant passed an order in June 2012, terminating the services of the Respondent. The Respondent preferred a series of writ petitions before the High Court of Allahabad against the above-mentioned orders. The High Court of Allahabad quashed the above-mentioned orders citing procedural lapses in the conduct of disciplinary enquiry, without specially directing the Appellant to provide back wages to the Respondent from 2009-2012. Upon refusal of the Appellant to pay back wages from 2009 - 2012, the Respondent filed another writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad. The High Court of Allahabad directed the Appellant to pay salary for the period 2009 - 2012, along with 18% interest. The Appellant preferred the present appeal before the SC against this order of the High Court of Allahabad. The two-judge bench of the SC held that, setting aside of the termination order does not automatically entitle the Respondent to the salary for the period 2009 - 2012. The SC differentiated the present case from a situation where an employee was dismissed from service and when such dismissal was set aside, he would automatically be entitled for back wages. The SC noted that since the Respondent was not kept away from the work on account of dismissal or by any order of the Appellant, the Respondent was not eligible to claim arrears of wages. Therefore, the SC partly allowed the appeal and directed the Appellant to consider the claim of back wages of the Respondent and pass appropriate orders with reasons. Comment : While the SC in this case did not conclusively determine whether the Respondent was eligible for wages or not, it referred to judicial precedents dealing with the principle of 'no work no pay'. The SC referred to the decision of the SC in Airports Authority of India and Others v. Shambhu Nath Das [(2008) 11 SCC 498] wherein it was held that if a person was absent from work without authorized leave or valid justification, he would not be eligible for wages for that period. On the other hand, the SC has also referred to the judgement of Shobha Ram Raturi v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Others [(2016) 16 SCC 663] wherein the SC held that where an employer has restrained the employee from working, the employer cannot plead 'no work no pay'. Therefore, the SC has attempted to reiterate that the principle of 'no work no pay' applies only in instances where the employee has voluntarily absented himself from work, and not where the employer has restrained the employee from attending work. Mandatory Communication of Annual Performance Appraisal Reports to Public Servants In Pankaj Prakash v. United India Insurance Company Limited and Another [Civil Appeal No. 5340-5341 of 2019, decided on 10 July 2019] , the SC held that all public servants are entitled to know their grades in an annual performance appraisal report (APAR). The Appellant was aggrieved by the fact that the entries in his APAR for two years were not disclosed, as a result of which he was unable to submit a representation for promotion at the particular time. The Appellant filled a writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad against such action of the employer i.e. Respondent. The High Court of Allahabad held that in the absence of an adverse entry or an entry below the benchmark, the failure to communicate the grade in an APAR did not result in an actionable grievance. The Appellant preferred an appeal against this judgment of the High Court of Allahabad. The SC held that as per the decisions of the SC in Dev Dutt v. Union of India [(2008) 8 SCC 725] and Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India [(2013) 9 SCC 566], it is mandatory that every entry in the APAR of a public servant must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period. Apart from ensuring transparency in the system, such disclosures also ensure that a public servant is given reasonable opportunity to make representations against the gradings if he / she is dissatisfied with the results. Further, the Union of India had also issued Office Memoranda on 14 May 2009 and 13 April 2010 seeking compliance by all ministries and departments. Moreover, on 19 October 2012, a specific communication was also addressed to public sector insurance companies. Therefore, the SC disagreed with the reasoning given by the High Court of Allahabad and held that non-communication of the entries in an APAR, whether good or bad grades, is a matter in respect of which a legitimate grievance can be made by the Appellant. Accordingly, the SC directed the Appellant to communicate the details of the APAR to the Respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. Comment: While performance appraisals are essential for every organisation to function efficiently, different mechanisms are adopted by the public and private sector, respectively. Performance appraisals in the public sector are guided by specific procedures and directions issued by the appropriate government and concerned departments, which are not applicable to private sector establishments. While there have not been judicial precedents dealing with similar issues in case of private sector employers, private establishments may adopt performance appraisal procedures to ensure transparency in recording and communicating the remarks relating to an employee and conformity to the principles of natural justice. The content of this document do not necessarily reflect the views/position of Khaitan & Co but remain solely those of the author(s). For any further queries or follow up please contact Khaitan & Co at [email protected] Employment and HR Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy. National Journal of Labour and Industrial Law About the Journal National Journal of Labour and Industrial Law is a peer reviewd Journal encircling the labour law, also known as employment law and is about the body of laws, administrative rulings and precedents which address the legal rights  and restrictions on working people and their organizations. As such, it mediates many aspects of the relationship between trade unions, employers and employees. In other words, Labour law defines the rights and obligations as workers, union members and employers in the workplace. Journal of Labour  and Industrial Law gives scholars, practitioners and professionals an opportunity or platform for research in the field of  law and current case studies on industrial disputes/ Labour Law and submit the valuable findings in the form of review paper, research paper, case studies, short article, book review etc. Announcements Call for papers: vol. 7, issue 2. National Journal of Labour and Industrial Law invites submission of unpublished original research article, review article or case law, project report, synopsis for publication in Vol.7, issue 2, 2024. Kindly go through  Author Guidelines  for manuscript submission. Kindly go through the link for  Referencing Pattern General Guidelines: 1) The work submitted shall be original and unpublished. 2) Plagiarism of any kind is prohibited. 3) A reference list should be provided at the end of the manuscript. All the references mentioned in the text should be cited in the “Author–Number” system (Vancouver style). There should be at least 10 references in the article.  4) The body of the paper shall be- Font: Times New Roman Font Size: 12 Line Spacing: 1.5 5) The copyright of the entry to the Journal should be submitted once the entry has been selected and the authors (s) of the same have been notified. Ø  Research articles (which should not be more than 5000 words with an abstract of not more than 250 words). Ø  Review articles (Should not be more than 6000 words with an abstract that can stretch up to 300 words and references can be up to 100 at maximum). Ø  Popular articles (Should not be more than 6000 words with an abstract that can stretch up to 300 words and references can be up to 100 at maximum). Ø  Short communications (1000 words). For Author's convenience Language:  British English. Submission:  All the Articles and Research Papers being contributed for National Journal of Labour and Industrial Law are to be sent at: [email protected] ,  [email protected] Entry should be in either ‘.doc’ or ‘.docx’ format. A mail confirming the receipt of the entry and subsequently notifying selected works of author (s) will be sent. Authors should mention the name, designation, email id., name of the institution, address of the institution along with the manuscript. Contact:   For any doubt(s)/clarification, please contact us at  [email protected] ,  [email protected] . Mr. Gagan Kumar Commissioning Editor Law Journals Centre for Legal Excellence Current Issue Gender disparities in the indian workplace: a legal perspective, make a submission. NJLIL Scope Call For paper NJLIL Indexing Double-Blind Peer Review Plagiarism Policy Open Access Statement Authorship Criteria Article Withdrawal Policy Journal's Instructions Digital Archiving Policy NJLIL Journal Key Words Copyright Form Mode of Payment Manuscript Submission Checklist Camera Ready Format Publication Services Reference Stylesheet Publication Process Every published material will be provided with an on-demand DOI and will remain the permanent link of that article. Information For Readers For Authors For Librarians Developed By Subscription. Login to access subscriber-only resources. Focus and Scope Section Policies Open Access Policy Submissions Online Submissions Author Guidelines Copyright Notice Privacy Statement Author Fees Journal Metric Special Issue About this Publishing System ISSN: Applied ACLU, Firms See Fifth Circuit Gains in Abusive Policing Suits By Caitlin McLean The ACLU of Louisiana reports unforeseen success teaming up with pro bono attorneys to challenge qualified immunity, including cases before the federal appellate court viewed as the nation’s most conservative. Since its creation in 2020, the ACLU of Louisiana’s Justice Lab pilot program says it has won over 80 legal victories in state and federal courts, including 34 qualified immunity challenges. In total, the program has dealt with 59 qualified immunity cases. Qualified immunity wins, according to the group focusing on allegations of racist police practices, means a court ruled that law enforcement actions violated established rights, allowing a suit to proceed. Nora Ahmed, the legal director for the ACLU in Louisiana, said the rights group notably has been “pleasantly surprised” at the “movement we’ve made” at the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which covers Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. “Getting reversals on qualified immunity—that has been something that we did not necessarily anticipate.” The doctrine of qualified immunity created by the Supreme Court shields government officials from suits alleging violations of constitutional rights. In the law enforcement context, it has come under scrutiny since the 2020 killing of George Floyd, a Black man, by a white Minneapolis police officer prompted a nationwide reckoning over race and policing. But a 2024 report by the public interest law firm The Institute for Justice underscores the difficulty in overcoming qualified immunity defenses. The study, which analyzed all federal qualified immunity appeals between 2010 and 2020 found that 59% of the time courts, ruled solely in favor of public officials. Courts resolved appeals in favor of accusers 24% of the time. The Fifth Circuit, a more conservative court, resolved appeals solely in favor of accusers least often among all circuits, just 16% of the time. But Justice Lab has prevailed in seven qualified immunity challenges before the Fifth Circuit. Four others are pending, and three were losses. Potential Shift Joanna Schwartz, a professor at UCLA School of Law who teaches and writes on qualified immunity, isn’t surprised by Justice Lab’s success before the Fifth Circuit as it could indicate a broader shift in how courts look at the issue. “It seems that the tide is turning to some degree. And in fact, there are some real skeptics about qualified immunity on the court, and there have been a number of pretty passionately written reversals of lower courts on qualified immunity,” Schwartz said. Notable Justice Lab wins at the Fifth Circuit include a ruling in June in which the court confirmed the denial of qualified immunity in the police shooting of a man who the group said was having a mental health crisis. And last August, the Fifth Circuit upheld a lower court decision in the case of a man Justice Lab says was “illegally frisked” by police during an “unnecessary traffic stop.” The ruling allowed the case to move forward at the time. ‘Resources, Brainpower’ Schwartz credited Justice Lab success to the skill of the ACLU and its lawyers in arguing cases. Fifty law firms, 19 legal clinics, and five community partners helped the Justice Lab litigate cases, securing $500,000 in settlements for clients’ families, according to the ACLU of Louisiana. Big Law partners include Linklaters, White & Case, and Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. Noelle Williams, a Freshfields associate, said support for projects like the work being done at the ACLU of Louisiana is important to change “unfavorable law” in the Fifth Circuit. “Putting all of that time and effort and resources and brainpower behind some of these social justice issues, is really the way to move the needle,” Williams said. Ahmed said achieving Justice Lab goals will require similar efforts nationally. “For the actual change that we’re looking for to occur across the country, a pilot program like this effectively needs to be running in every state with a distinct commitment to bringing these types of cases because it’s these types of cases that we strongly believe prevent the murders,” Ahmed said. To contact the reporter on this story: Caitlin McLean in Washington at [email protected] To contact the editors responsible for this story: Seth Stern at [email protected] ; John Crawley at [email protected] Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading: Learn about bloomberg law. AI-powered legal analytics, workflow tools and premium legal & business news. Already a subscriber? Log in to keep reading or access research tools. Share full article For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers. Apple Podcasts Google Podcasts Breaking’s Olympic Debut A sport’s journey from the streets of new york all the way to the paris games.. Hosted by Sabrina Tavernise Featuring Jonathan Abrams Produced by Sydney Harper Luke Vander Ploeg Shannon M. Lin and Will Reid Edited by Lexie Diao MJ Davis Lin and Ben Calhoun Original music by Dan Powell Marion Lozano and Diane Wong Engineered by Alyssa Moxley Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTube More than 50 years after its inception, “breaking” — not “break dancing,” a term coined by the media and disdained by practitioners — will debut as an Olympic sport. Jonathan Abrams, who writes about the intersection of sports and culture, explains how breaking’s big moment came about. On today’s episode Jonathan Abrams , a Times reporter covering national culture news. Background reading The Olympic battles in breaking will be a watershed moment for a dance form conceived and cultivated by Black and Hispanic youth in the Bronx during the 1970s. Breakers are grappling with hip-hop’s Olympic moment. Will their art translate into sport? There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how. We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page. The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Michael Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez and Brendan Klinkenberg. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson, Nina Lassam and Nick Pitman. Jonathan Abrams writes about the intersections of sports and culture and the changing cultural scenes in the South. More about Jonathan Abrams Advertisement Skip to main content Keyboard shortcuts for audio player Weekend Edition Sunday Latest Show Sunday Puzzle Corrections Listen to the lead story from this episode. Politics chat: Trump and the presidential debate, Harris' running mate announcement by  Mara Liasson ,  Ayesha Rascoe Social media is flooded with disinformation about the presidential candidates by  Ayesha Rascoe The Americas Protests over election results in venezuela aren't losing steam. by  Carrie Kahn ,  Ayesha Rascoe A new bill could bring relief to those displaced after the wildfires in Maui by  Catherine Cluett Pactol James Baldwin's face is painted on a decorative bookcase inside the Baldwin & Co. bookstore in New Orleans. Neda Ulaby/NPR hide caption A bookstore named for James Baldwin is counting down to his 100th birthday by  Neda Ulaby Art & Design A new york artist has a unique take on the art of carving and engraving on whale bone. by  Ben Berke Sunday Puzzle NPR hide caption Sunday Puzzle: An A.C. puzzle to beat the heat by  Will Shortz SUNDAY PUZZLE 08/04/24 Fans at the olympics are trading commemorative pins from different countries, music interviews, cat burns on coming of age and her debut album 'early twenties', the week in news and politics, from the newsmakers themselves. Vice President Harris, who's set to be Democrats' presidential nominee, delivers remarks during an event on Wednesday in Houston. Brandon Bell/Getty Images hide caption Latino support for Biden was lagging. Harris gives Democrats a chance to win some back by  Ashley Lopez Women are leading the medal tally for Team USA at the Olympics by  Becky Sullivan ,  Ayesha Rascoe The racial income gap has narrowed for Black Americans, new research shows The sound of the summer came to electronic musician drew daniel in a dream. by  Ayesha Rascoe ,  Danny Hensel Campers at Mt. Olive Lutheran Church in Santa Monica, Calif., paint crosses during craft time at vacation Bible school. Jason DeRose/NPR hide caption Not your parents' VBS: How vacation Bible schools are changing to meet new needs by  Jason DeRose Pickle products are taking over supermarket aisles by  Ayesha Rascoe ,  Stephen Fowler In Paris, the Olympics pushed out thousands living on the edge of the city by  Eleanor Beardsley Magnesium is social media's new favorite magic aid for sleep. Here's what science says by  Maria Godoy ,  Ayesha Rascoe A new musical reimagines 'Cats' as it should be by  Tracie Hunte Searching for a song you heard between stories? We've retired music buttons on these pages. Learn more here. 187 IMAGES Labour law case analysis Labour LAW II PDF labour law cases notes all topics cases Labour law case summary Labour law 2 Labour Law Summary 1-8 COMMENTS The top 7 recent employment law cases you should know In this ever-changing landscape, it is increasingly important to keep up to speed on the latest employment legal cases and developments. Below is a brief summary of the seven most significant employment legal cases. 1. U.S. Supreme Court Issues Landmark Civil Rights Decision. 10 Important Cases of Labour Law The cases discussed below aim to cover various aspects of labour laws. 1. Workmen of M/S Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India v. Management [1] In the instant case, the workers of the Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company were terminated from their employment by the employer as a result of the Domestic Inquiry Finding. Labor & Employment Supreme Court Cases Many of the labor and employment cases that have reached the Supreme Court involve claims of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in the workplace. These may arise under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits adverse employment actions based on the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of an employee. The 10 most important employment law cases in 2021 Despite the coronavirus pandemic, HR professionals have had their fair share of employment law rulings to keep track of in 2021. We count down the 10 most important judgments of the year that every employer should know about. 10. Male directors dismissed to improve gender pay gap. Bayfield and another v Wunderman Thompson (UK) Ltd and others ... 20 most important Labour Law judgements every HR manager should learn This article is written by Gaurav Kumar, from Surendranath Law College (University of Calcutta). This article depicts the landmark judgments pertaining to labour laws. Introduction The Labour law is the area of law that regulates the relationship between the employer and the employee. An employer could be government agencies or private entities, companies, organizations, industry. […] Top Employment Law Cases of 2024 (So Far): What HR Needs to Know Even before the U.S. Supreme Court closed out its 2023 term and announced final decisions on July 1, 2024 had already provided a series of important employment-law decisions for employers. Engaging Contract Labour: Learnings from Landmark Judgements ICFAI University Journal of Employment Law, 6(4), 13-27. Google Scholar. Joseph J. (2019). Industrial relations and the tragic flaw. ... Management and Labour Studies, 43(1/2), 58-69. Crossref. Google Scholar. ... Steel authority of India case: Contract labour abolition or regularisation. Cochin University Law Review, 30(2,3), 287-299 ... Employment and Labor Law Harvard Law School is a center of expertise and action in the fields of employment law, which defines the relationships between individual employers and employees, and labor law, which defines protections for workers when they act collectively, such as in unions. Students have the opportunity to learn from leading scholars, practitioners ... Landmark Cases Labor Law Cases. Unique to this database is a chart of landmark court cases related to labor and employment law. Shows 24 landmark court cases, accompanied by their decision year and a brief synopsis of the case. Each case is linked directly to the original full-text decision. Includes cases from the U.S. Supreme Court and state courts. Home Labor Law cases and administrative rulings can be found in a variety of ways using Westlaw. You can start in the Employment Practice Area and then click on "Cases," "Administrative Decisions & Guidance," or "Administrative Materials" (in the right-hand margin under "Resources"). ... Study Aids & Practice Materials. Study Aids. Understanding ... PDF LABOUR LAW CASE SUMMARY A. Case Laws under The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 1. Whether the transfer order of an employee during the pendency of an inquiry before the internal ... continued employment and also, the test laid down by the Privy Council in Lee Ting Sang v. Chung Chi-Keung,[[1990] 2 A.C. 374], ... Important Recent and Upcoming US Employment Law Cases Buffer Flipboard. As we turn the page on 2020, we offer a brief look back at several significant employment decisions over the past year. At the federal level, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ... Labour Law Important articles and study material on Labour Law - Click on the link to Read. Case Analysis: Bangalore Water Supply v. R. Rajappa & Others 1978 AIR 548. 10 Important Cases of Labour Law. Occupier under the Factories Act, 1948. Unfair Labour Practices in India. History and Development of Trade Union in India. The top 10 employment law cases of 2021 Worker absent for 800 shifts during career was unfairly dismissed, tribunal finds. A worker who was absent for 808 shifts over a 20-year career - costing the firm an estimated £95,850 in sick pay - won an unfair dismissal claim after a tribunal found his former employer had not followed its own absence management procedures. Subject The Case Study Teaching Method; Harvard Law Case Studies A-Z; Free Materials; Blog; Shop By Category; Harvard Law Case Studies A-Z; Free Materials; Program; Role Play; Workshop-Based Case Study; Discussion-Based Case Study; DVD; Subject; Sabrineh Ardalan; Sharon Block; Robert Bordone; Emily M. Broad Leib; Chad Carr; Robert Clark; John Coates ... Mahlangu and Another v Minister of Labour and Others (CCT306 ... Section 1 of COIDA defines an "employee" as follows: "'employee' means a person who has entered into or works under a contract of service or of apprenticeship or learnership, with an employer, whether the contract is express or implied, oral or in writing, and whether the remuneration is calculated by time or by work done, or is in cash or in kind, and includes— Case Study: Navigating Labor Unrest Print. Summary. Paulo Ferreira, the president of Luna Brazil, has an ambitious plan to turn around the dismal performance of the plant he oversees in Campinas. The wrinkle is, he needs the buy-in ... Analysis of Recent Employment and Labour Law Cases Analysis of Recent Employment and Labour Law Cases. Khaitan & Co. MEMBER FIRM OF. India July 17 2019. This Case Update provides a brief analysis of the recent judicial decisions delivered by the ... Top 20 Landmark Supreme Court & Important Judgments On Labour Law TOP 20 LANDMARK SUPREME COURT & IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS ON LABOUR LAW I. SOCIAL WELFARE ACT 1. Workmen of M/S Firestone Tyre And Rubber Co. Of India V. Management AIR, 1973 Sc 1227 In this case, the question for determination before the Supreme Court was as to what was the interpretation of section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.This section stipulated the powers of the Labour Courts ... Ten key employment law cases from 2022 As we begin a new year, Helen Burgess pulls together a selection of employment law cases from the last 12 months which brought to light key employment issues. Smith v Pimlico Plumbers. In his previous long-running court case, Mr Smith had successfully established that he had worker rights despite being engaged as a 'self-employed' plumber. Cases & Decisions Decisions. Administrative Law Judge Decisions After a Regional Director issues a complaint in an unfair labor practice case, an NLRB Administrative Law Judge hears the case and issues a decision and recommended order, which can then be appealed to the Board in Washington. Analysis Of Recent Employment And Labour Law Cases This Case Update provides a brief analysis of the recent judicial decisions delivered by the Supreme Court of India (SC) and High Court of Bombay, on certain labour and employment matters pertaining to maternity / paternity leave in surrogacy cases, wage claims by absentee employees and communication of performance appraisals to concerned employees. National Journal of Labour and Industrial Law Journal of Labour and Industrial Law gives scholars, practitioners and professionals an opportunity or platform for research in the field of law and current case studies on industrial disputes/ Labour Law and submit the valuable findings in the form of review paper, research paper, case studies, short article, book review etc. Announcements ACLU, Firms See Fifth Circuit Gains in Abusive Policing Suits The study, which analyzed all federal qualified immunity appeals between 2010 and 2020 found that 59% of the time courts, ruled solely in favor of public officials. ... Schwartz credited Justice Lab success to the skill of the ACLU and its lawyers in arguing cases. Fifty law firms, 19 legal clinics, and five community partners helped the ... PDF Global Macro ISSUE 129 conservative base case scenario assumes that the expansion of traditional data centers could boost European power demand by around 10-15% over the coming ten years. Studies show that AI data centers can consume up to around 10x more energy than traditional data centers, particularly during their training phase. We estimate that AI data centers Breaking's Olympic Debut The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan ... Weekend Edition Sunday for August, 4 2024 : NPR Hear the Weekend Edition Sunday program for Aug 04, 2024 assignment essay homework paper phd report resume review speech