{"id":202,"date":"2021-04-04T07:42:25","date_gmt":"2021-04-04T07:42:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/legalblog.ie\/?p=202"},"modified":"2021-04-04T07:42:25","modified_gmt":"2021-04-04T07:42:25","slug":"employment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/employment\/","title":{"rendered":"Employment"},"content":{"rendered":"<div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_63 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title \" >Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/employment\/#Statute_of_Labourers\" title=\"Statute of Labourers\">Statute of Labourers<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/employment\/#Wages\" title=\"Wages\">Wages<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/employment\/#Apprentices\" title=\"Apprentices\">Apprentices<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/employment\/#Combinations_Unlawful\" title=\"Combinations\u00a0 Unlawful\">Combinations\u00a0 Unlawful<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/employment\/#Trade_Unions_Lawful\" title=\"Trade Unions Lawful\">Trade Unions Lawful<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/employment\/#Disputes_Enforcement\" title=\"Disputes &amp; Enforcement\">Disputes &amp; Enforcement<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/employment\/#Modernistion\" title=\"Modernistion\">Modernistion<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/employment\/#Truck_Act\" title=\"Truck Act\">Truck Act<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/employment\/#Factory_Acts\" title=\"Factory Acts\">Factory Acts<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/employment\/#Sectoral_Protection\" title=\"Sectoral Protection\">Sectoral Protection<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/employment\/#Liability_for_accidents\" title=\"Liability for accidents\">Liability for accidents<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/employment\/#Workmans_Compensation\" title=\"Workmans Compensation\">Workmans Compensation<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Statute_of_Labourers\"><\/span>Statute of Labourers<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>In earlier times, much labour was forced labour, dependent on the powers of Lords or other persons with influence in the community. The first Statute of Labourers was passed on the 23rd year of the reign of Edward III. \u00a0This was done in consequence of the Black Death which reduced the number of labourers to such an extent that they sought increased wages.<\/p>\n<p>The Act gave statutory force to the forcing of labour. \u00a0It declared that every man and woman of England, free or bond, able in body within three score years, not exercising craft nor having his own ground to live nor land to till nor serving any other, should be bound to serve such person as should require him at the wages he or she was \u00a0customarily \u00a0to be given. He may be committed to prison for noncompliance.\u00a0 Penalties were imposed on any master paying or workmen receiving more than the wages previously given.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Wages\"><\/span>Wages<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>In the 16th century, the sanctions on masters for not paying statutory rate, were lifted so the master could choose to pay a higher rate.\u00a0 The Statute of Labourers sometimes referred to as the Statute of Apprentices arose from the suppression of monasteries which led to a large number of unemployed persons wandering the country.<\/p>\n<p>Many of the former Acts regulating labour and wages were repealed.\u00a0\u00a0 It provided for fixing of new rates that varied annually by justice of peace and sessions.\u00a0 It fixed the hours of work for workmen in husbandry and declared that workmen must work for whoever required them.\u00a0 Penalties applied against any labour who should quit his town or county without a permit.\u00a0 The law fell into disuse in the early 18th century and was eventually repealed in 1814.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Apprentices\"><\/span>Apprentices<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Statute of Apprentices forbade workmen exercising a craft or industry until the worker had been apprenticed for seven years.\u00a0 It provided that master should employ a fixed number of apprentices proportionate to the number of journeymen they employed.\u00a0 The Act was disregarded by many masters by the end of the 18<sup>th<\/sup> century.<\/p>\n<p>The \u00a0Statute of Apprentices was repealed in 1814.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Combinations_Unlawful\"><\/span>Combinations\u00a0 Unlawful<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Numerous Acts in the 14th century onwards were directed against combinations of different trades for the purpose of increasing wages or reducing hours of work.\u00a0 The Combinations Act \u00a01800 was aimed at preventing conspiracies amongst \u00a0journeymen to raise their own wages.\u00a0 All benefit clubs and societies were prohibited.<\/p>\n<p>In the 18th century, the fixing of wages by justices had fallen into disuse and employers were at the mercy of masters.\u00a0 Notwithstanding the suppression of trade unions, workmen in most of the chief industries had established protection associations which later became known as trade unions.\u00a0 The early association sought to maintain the statutory rate of wages against incursions by employers.<\/p>\n<p>The Combination Acts were repealed in 1824.\u00a0 The statute repealed 35 Acts prohibiting combinations amongst workmen to raise their wages or alter their conditions of work.\u00a0 The Act declared, in effect that it was lawful for masters and workmen to associate with the objects of furthering their interests in the trade.<\/p>\n<p>However, the following disastrous economic circumstances, the Act was repealed the following year and trade associations were again subject to common law and thereby potentially void and subject to prosecution for conspiracy.\u00a0 An exception was made for meetings to discuss rates of wages or hours. In 1857, an Act was passed restricting the effect of the legislation.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Trade_Unions_Lawful\"><\/span>Trade Unions Lawful<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Trade unions were prohibited and illegal at common law between 1825 and 1871.\u00a0 Their members were liable to prosecution for and in connection for conspiracy.\u00a0 They did not recover their own assets and they had no legal rights to obtain money from their own banker. A Royal Commission appointed in 1867 led to the passing of the Trade Union Act 1871 and later amended by Acts in 1876 and 1893.<\/p>\n<p>The Trade Union Act declared that trade union should not be unlawful so as to render any member liable \u00a0on prosecution for conspiracy on the ground merely that the objects of the union are in restraint of trade.\u00a0 Contracts between members and ones between unions and another are for a special disposition of their funds were not to be enforceable.<\/p>\n<p>Trade unions could be lawfully registered provided all of their objects were lawful, properly used and be vested in trustees.\u00a0 It could sue and be sued in its own name. Contemporaneous with the Trade Union Act 1871, the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1871 declared that certain specified acts committed in furtherance of the objects of trade unions to be unlawful and criminal.<\/p>\n<p>At the turn of the century, the House of Lords decision on Allen v Flood further protected employees from civil liability in respect of combinations even where their motive was malicious.<\/p>\n<p>The Trade Disputes Act 1906 provided the modern law in relation to strikes.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Disputes_Enforcement\"><\/span>Disputes &amp; Enforcement<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>By Act of the 20th year of George II, justices of peace were to decide all disputes between masters and workmen arising out of their contract of service.\u00a0 A breach on the master\u2019s part was punishable by damages. A breach on the workmen&#8217;s part was a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment and flogging.<\/p>\n<p>By Act of 1823 justices were given power to deal with and to punish by imprisonment breach of contract on the part of workmen in refusing to enter or quitting the master&#8217;s service.\u00a0 Until 1848, complaints by masters were brought against workers on summons or they were made to appear on warrant.<\/p>\n<p>The effect of common law and statute was that an individual breach of contract by a workman was punishable by statute or constituted conspiracy. In 1867, an Act abolished imprisonment for breach of contract except in the case of aggravated breach of contract.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Modernistion\"><\/span>Modernistion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Following a Royal Commission in 1874, the Employer and Workmen&#8217;s Act 1875 and the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875 radically updated and modernized the role of master and servant.\u00a0 It limited the application of criminal law to the relationship.<\/p>\n<p>The first Act gave jurisdiction to the County Courts and Courts of Summary Jurisdiction in disputes between employers and workmen.\u00a0 However, they were to be civil and not criminal in nature.\u00a0 The second Act provided that agreements or combinations to do any act in furtherance of a dispute is not to render the person committing it indictable for conspiracy if such act would have committed by one person would not be an offence.<\/p>\n<p>There were exceptions for breaches of contract having the effect depriving the public of gas and water or breaches of contract where the workmen had reasonable cause to believe would \u00a0endanger life, cause serious bodily injury or endanger valuable property. A number of offences in relation to violence, intimidation, besetting was set out and defined.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Truck_Act\"><\/span>Truck Act<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>At the commencement of the 19th century, the truck system which signified exchange or barter widely applied instead of payment in cash.\u00a0 The master might be in goods or commodities on which he himself secured a profit. The Truck Act 1831, 1887 and 1896 sought to end the system of payment in barter.<\/p>\n<p>The 1831 Act required payment of wages in cash.\u00a0 It updated a sequence of earlier legislation which was easily circumvented.\u00a0 The act applied to all workmen engaged in manual labour.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factory_Acts\"><\/span>Factory Acts<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Factory Acts began in the year 1802. It reflected the mechanization of industry and the setting up of large factories through the United Kingdom.\u00a0 Large number of women and children were employed in insanitary and ill ventilated buildings under crowded conditions for long hours.<\/p>\n<p>The first Factory Act 1802 applied only to woollen mills and factories where apprentices or 20 workmen were employed.\u00a0\u00a0 It provided for cleansing and ventilation by means of windows, supply of clothing to apprentices and instruction in reading, writing and arithmetic.<\/p>\n<p>Several further Factory Acts were passed.\u00a0 The 1833 Act passed by the first post Reform Act parliament applied to all factories.\u00a0 It forbade employment of children under nine and limited the hours of work to nine hours a day for children between 9 and 13 years.\u00a0 It prohibited night work for young person\u2019s i.e. under 18.<\/p>\n<p>Progressively further reforms were enacted.\u00a0 An 1844 Act provided for an effective \u00a0system of inspection by government inspectors and certifying surgeons.\u00a0 The first regulations were made regarding the fencing of machinery. \u00a0Inspectors were allowed to bring actions for damages on behalf of workmen injured.\u00a0 Statutes in 1850 and 1853 provided a uniform working day.\u00a0 Between 1861 and 1867 seven more statutes brought many more industries within the scope of the legislation.<\/p>\n<p>The Workshop Regulation Act 1867 applied much of the legislation on factories to workshops.\u00a0 A workshop was any room or place whether in the open-air or not in which young persons, children or women were employed in any handicraft.<\/p>\n<p>A Royal Commission considered the statutes in 1875 and a consolidating Act was passed in 1878, the Factory and Workshops Act.\u00a0 The Acts were further amended on regular intervals through the 19th century, so that all places used for trade or business in which any articles were manufactured or altered and where machinery by mechanical powers was used were deemed factories.\u00a0 Much of legislation also apply to \u00a0docks, warehouses, wharves and quays.<\/p>\n<p>By the end of the 19th century, the Acts made detailed regulations in relatMonion to sanitary conditions, temperature, ventilation, fire, overcrowding, fencing, dangerous materials, the employment of young persons, hours of labour and night work. The minimum age at which employment might \u00a0commence was 11 years.\u00a0 However, the education legislation effectively raised this age to 12.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Sectoral_Protection\"><\/span>Sectoral Protection<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>In England and Wales, a range of legislation dealt with work in mines.\u00a0 An Act of 1842 prohibited the employment of females in mines underground and boys under 10 years of age.\u00a0 An Act of 1850 instituted a system of inspection of mines.\u00a0 1855 legislation laid down general rules for the safe working of mines.\u00a0 In 1872, the existing Acts were consolidated.\u00a0 The definition of mines was widened.\u00a0 The Acts were again consolidated in 1887.\u00a0 They provided stringent regulation of conditions of employment. Detailed rules were provided in relation to health and safety, notification of accidents and inspections.<\/p>\n<p>Other remedial legislation included:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The Chimney Sweepers Act protecting the conditions of employment<\/li>\n<li>The Merchant Shipping Act, codifying the conditions of work of seamen.<\/li>\n<li>Notification of Accidents Act requiring notice to be given to the Board of Trade of accidents in building and engineering.<\/li>\n<li>The Wages Attachment Abolition Act forbidding attachment of wages of workmen,<\/li>\n<li>the Explosive Acts and Quarries Acts regulating safety of workmen in industries using explosives,<\/li>\n<li>Shop Hours Act 1892 to 1895 regulating the hours of work in shops and requiring shops to provide minimum facilities to their employees.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Liability_for_accidents\"><\/span>Liability for accidents<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>In principle an employee could sue an employer for accidents at work arising from negligence.\u00a0 However, a number of common law principles made this a very difficult proposition in many cases.\u00a0 In principle, the employer would be liable for the negligence of his employees including fellow employed.<\/p>\n<p>However, in the notorious case of Priestley v Fowler an attempt to make an employer liable was non-suited on the basis of the doctrine of common employment.\u00a0 Where the person suffering the injury and the person causing it are both in the same employment, the employer was not responsible for the consequence of the injury.<\/p>\n<p>The Employers Liability Act of 1880 imposed liability on employers for defects in the conditions of work, machinery and plant if it was attributable to his negligence or the negligence of persons to whom he has delegated his duty.\u00a0 He was also made liable for the negligence of his superintendents and those to whom he has entrusted the duty of giving the workmen orders or directions.\u00a0 The Act did not abolish the adoption of common employment but did make some inroads in certain contexts on it.<\/p>\n<p>Another principle, \u00a0that of consent limited common lawsuits against employers for negligence by the deemed consent of employees. The doctrine of consent was restricted by a House of Lords case Smith v Baker in 1891.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Workmans_Compensation\"><\/span>Workmans Compensation<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>In 1897, the Worker&#8217;s Compensation Act created new basis of compensation for workplace accidents.\u00a0 The legislation applied to railways, factories, mines and engineering work in buildings of certain sizes and dimension.\u00a0 It was not necessary to prove that the injuries were attributable to any negligence.\u00a0 In the case of \u00a0death, compensation was recoverable by relatives under the Fatal Accidents Act 1845.\u00a0 The accident must arise out of or in the course of employment and not be attributable to serious and wilful misconduct by the injured workmen.<\/p>\n<p>The compensation was roughly three years wages in the case of death (for dependents) and half wages in the case of total incapacity.\u00a0 Compensation was based on workmen&#8217;s average weekly earnings. These Acts work under a system of arbitration generally in the county courts.\u00a0 The Acts were extended in 1900 to workmen employed in agriculture.<\/p>\n<!--themify_builder_content-->\n<div id=\"themify_builder_content-202\" data-postid=\"202\" class=\"themify_builder_content themify_builder_content-202 themify_builder tf_clear\">\n    <\/div>\n<!--\/themify_builder_content-->\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Statute of Labourers In earlier times, much labour was forced labour, dependent on the powers of Lords or other persons with influence in the community. The first Statute of Labourers was passed on the 23rd year of the reign of Edward III. \u00a0This was done in consequence of the Black Death which reduced the number [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[32],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=202"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":203,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202\/revisions\/203"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=202"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=202"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=202"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}