?Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. ?The House of Lords (now Supreme Court) case of Duke v GEC Reliance Ltd
[1988] 1 All ER 626.
Now answer the following questions from your reading of the Judgment:
A.Describe why s6(2) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Equal Pay Act 1970 did not help Mrs Duke win her case against her employer.
B.Apply the provisions of the Equal Treatment Directive (76/207) to Mrs Dukes situation. If it was enforceable (and ignoring the Sex Discrimination Act and the Equal Pay Act), what would be the result?
C.What is the reason why the Sex Discrimination Act and Equal Pay Act did not reflect the Equal Treatment Directive? In what way did this reason sway the courts overall decision?
D.Read Lord Templemans description of the German von Colson case. Describe how Lord Templeman used it to solve the issues which lay before him.
Need a Professional Writer to Work on this Paper and Give you a 100 % Original Paper? Click Here and Get this Essay Done………………
QUESTION 2When a business is sold from one person to another (and for this purpose person may mean another business), a key cause for concern is what happens to the employees. Assume that a business is sold by person A to person B. If you were an employee of the business, person B could say that he does not have a contract with
W200 eTMA Guide55 The University of Law Limited 2014you, and that he does not intend to honour the contract that you have with person A after the sale.
In order to deal with this situation, the EU passed a directive (Directive 77/187, a 1977 directive) with the intention of protecting employees rights on the sale of a business. The aim of the Directive was to transfer the contracts of employment from person A to person B. So, before the sale you would be employed by person A, and after the sale you would automatically be employed by person B, who had to respect your contract of employment.
Directive 77/187 was brought into UK law via the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (the Regs).
Find the House of Lords (now Supreme Court) case of Litster and others v Forth Dry Dock and Engineering Co Ltd and another [1989] 1 All ER 1134, which is a case based upon the Regs. Read the headnote, and the comments of Lord Keith and Lord Templeman ONLY. Then answer the following questions:
A.Which wording from the Regs was in issue in the case? Explain, with reference to the facts of the case, why the interpretation of this wording was so important in deciding the case.
B.What did Lord Keith of Kinkel describe as the duty of the court, and how did it help him reach his conclusion?
C.Lord Templeman was also one of the Lords sitting for this case. He again makes reference to the ECJ case of von Colson, however this time he selects a different passage from the judgment, which leads him to a conclusion which looks at odds with his comments in the Duke v GEC Reliance Ltd case. Summarise in your own words the points raised in the passage from von Colson. In doing so you should relate it to Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
D.Summarise Lord Templemans conclusion. E.How do you reconcile Lord Templemans comments in this case and his
comments in Duke v GEC Reliance Ltd?
F.Analyse Lord Templemans interpretation of regulation 5 of the Regs. You should give your opinion of:
Need a Professional Writer to Work on this Paper and Give you a 100 % Original Paper? Click Here and Get this Essay Done………………
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.