Public Sector Strikes, Labor-Management Relations, and the Common Law

1988 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-90
Author(s):  
Raymond Hogler
Keyword(s):  
Public Sector ◽  
Collective Bargaining ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Public Employees ◽  
Labor Management ◽  
The Common

This article analyzes the decision of the California Supreme Court holding that strikes by public employees are protected at common law. It is argued that the judiciary has intruded itself into a subject which should be regulated by the legislature. By creating a rule lacking in administrative safeguards, the decision may lead to labor conflict and disruption. In any event, public negotiations vitally affect the interest of the citizen, and citizens should have a voice in designing public sector collective bargaining systems.

Knowing Habeas Corpus When You See It

2018 ◽  
pp. 9-11
Author(s):  
Eric M. Freedman
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Habeas Corpus ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Government ◽  
Enemy Combatant

Viewing habeas corpus through a legal lens frequently misleads. The common law “rule” against controverting the return to writs of habeas corpus was commonly evaded through devices permitting judicial examination of the underlying facts and law. In many cases concluding “writ denied,” the prisoner in fact obtained “habeas corpus without the writ.” Failure to understand this explains why the Fourth Circuit performed so badly in rejecting the challenge of Yaser Hamdi to his detention as an enemy combatant. The Supreme Court very properly reversed that decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), resulting in the prisoner’s speedy release when the government was confronted with having to actually prove in court the claims it had made on paper.

Remedies for equitable wrongs

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Burrows
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
Turn On ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Common ◽  
Law Courts ◽  
Substantive Law ◽  
Court Of Chancery

Torts and breach of contract are termed common law wrongs because they were historically developed in the common law courts. Equitable wrongs are civil wrongs that historically were developed in the Court of Chancery. Despite the fusion of the common law courts and the Court of Chancery by the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts 1873–1875, much of the substantive law has not been fused. One example is the continued distinction between common law and equitable wrongs. In a rational fused system, nothing should turn on whether a civil wrong is common law or equitable. But that is not the present law.

British Virgin Islands

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arabella di Iorio
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Virgin Islands ◽  
British Virgin Islands ◽  
Law System ◽  
The Common ◽  
Eastern Caribbean ◽  
Common Law System ◽  
Trust Law

The legal system of the British Virgin Islands is a common law system based on the English model, comprising statute law and binding case precedents. The principles of English common law and equity apply in the BVI (subject to modification by BVI statutes) pursuant to the Common Law (Declaration of Application) Act (Cap 13) and the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Virgin Islands) Act (Cap 80) respectively. The general principles of trust law are based on English law.

The Relationship between Disability Non-Discrimination Law and Quota Schemes

2019 ◽  
pp. 94-117
Author(s):  
Lisa Waddington
Keyword(s):  
Public Sector ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
People With Disabilities ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Common ◽  
Public And Private Sector ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter explores the relationship between disability quota schemes and non-discrimination law in Europe. While at first sight they seem to sit uneasily beside each other, the chapter reveals how, in some instances, quota schemes can serve to facilitate compliance with non-discrimination legislation. At the same time, the chapter explores seeming incompatibilities between the two approaches and considers whether there are differences between common and civil law jurisdictions in this respect. Tentative conclusions suggest that there is a greater willingness to establish quota schemes through legislation in civil law jurisdictions compared to common law jurisdictions, and that quota schemes in civil law jurisdictions are more likely to provide for the imposition of a levy in the case that employers fail to meet their quota obligations through employing the required number of people with disabilities. There also seems to be some indication that there is greater awareness of the potential for conflict or tension, in various forms, between non-discrimination law and quota schemes in common law jurisdictions than in civil law jurisdictions. Finally, the two schemes operating in the common law states are only applicable to the public sector—whilst in civil law states quotas are generally applied to both public and private sector employers. This may indicate different perceptions regarding the role of public sector employers and the legitimacy of imposing quota requirements.

11. Illegality

2020 ◽  
pp. 405-434
Author(s):  
Jack Beatson ◽  
Andrew Burrows ◽  
John Cartwright
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Final Section ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Common ◽  
Restraint Of Trade

This chapter considers what counts as illegality and the effect of illegality on a contract (and consequent restitution). The approach of the Courts to illegality has been transformed for the better, and simplified, by the Supreme Court in Patel v Mirza in 2016. Illegal conduct, tainting a contract, can vary widely from serious crimes (eg murder) to relatively minor crimes (eg breach of licensing requirements) through to civil wrongs and to conduct that does not comprise a wrong but is contrary to public policy. As regards the effect of illegality, where a statute does not deal with this, the common law approach is now to apply a range of factors. A final section of the chapter examines contracts in restraint of trade.

A Curious Decision by Zambia’s Highest Court: Six Years Imprisonment for Civil Contempt?

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-138
Author(s):  
Christopher Phiri
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law

Abstract On 23 November 2018, the Supreme Court of Zambia delivered a judgement which suggests that Zambian judges have virtually unbridled power to move on their own motion to punish for contempt of court anyone who criticises their judicial decisions. This article considers that judgement. It argues that whilst justice might well have been done in the case in question, it was certainly not seen to be done. Two main reasons are given for this argument. First, the judges appeared to have acted both as prosecutors and adjudicators in their own cause when it was neither urgent nor imperative to act immediately on their own motion. Second, the classification by the Court of the contempt in question as civil contempt rather than criminal contempt is alien to the common law world. The article culminates in a clarion call for the Zambian legislature to intervene and clarify the law of contempt of court to avert capricious and unbridled invocation of the judicial power to punish for contempt.

RE FLIGHTLEASE: THE ‘REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL CONNECTION’ TEST FOR RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS FAILS TO TAKE FLIGHT IN IRELAND

2014 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
pp. 197-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Kenny
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The Real ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
The Common

AbstractThe common law rules for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments were radically reformulated by the Canadian Supreme Court in Beals v Saldanha. Few other common law jurisdictions have considered whether or not to follow Canada in this development in private International Law. In 2012, the Irish Supreme Court definitively rejected the Canadian approach. This note examines the judgment in that case, and assesses the reasoning of the Irish Court.

Assessing the Effectiveness of Florida's Impasse Resolution Procedures: A Survey of Public Sector Practitioners

1988 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 253-260 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth M. Jennings ◽  
Steven K. Paulson ◽  
Steven A. Williamson
Keyword(s):  
Public Sector ◽  
Collective Bargaining ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Public Employees ◽  
Regression Analyses ◽  
Perceived Effectiveness ◽  
Frequency Distributions ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Right ◽  
Impasse Resolution

Public employees in Florida have been permitted by law since 1974 to engage in collective bargaining with their employers. Along with the right to engage in collective bargaining, the law established a dispute resolution process for resolving bargaining impasses in lieu of the strike, which was strictly prohibited. This law also established the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC), which was created to oversee the process. The present study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the present impasse procedure as perceived by the concerned parties. This study was exploratory in nature and designed to provide PERC and thus the Florida Legislature with the documentation required for review of the present law. A total of 1,150 questionnaires were mailed to union representatives and public employers. A 45 percent return rate was achieved. The return was approximately equally divided between the unions and the employers. Frequency distributions of these responses and regression analyses are presented and conclusions are drawn as to the perceived effectiveness of the process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document