Tort liability and employment law have a long and intertwined history. The "control test," initially used by English courts to determine employee status, originated in tort law. Employers can be held liable for damages caused by their employees to third parties and property, provided an employment relationship exists and the employee acted under the employer's control or direction. The evolution of tort liability has often mirrored developments in employment law. A crucial element in establishing employer liability is whether the individual who caused the damage was indeed an employee. This determination rests on the definition of "employee" as established by employment law. Civil courts adjudicating tort claims must interpret the Employment and Labor Law to ascertain the existence of an employment contract between the employer and the injured party. The court cannot apply a different standard for employee identification than the one defined in the Employment ...
There are two mechanisms an employee may terminate his employment contract upon his own initiation. The first one is by giving 30 days advance notice. Apart from the notice, no valid ground is necessary for such termination. The second is termination without notice due to valid grounds specified by the labour proclamation. Both mechanisms produce different results in terms of payment of compensation. The purpose of this short article is not to compare these two kinds of termination. The scope of the article is limited to overview of the procedural and substantive requirements for lawful termination of employment contract by the employee including the legal effect thereof. Forced Resignation and Constructive Dismissal Dismissal and resignation are two terms employed to indicate termination by the employer and the employee respectively. Neither of these two terms are used in the labour proclamation. As pointed out above, resignation could be with or without notice. In common law cou...