Skip to main content

Tort Liability and Employment Law: Intertwined Concepts

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 ...
Post a Comment

Case Summary: Cassation Case No. 241758 - Overtime Payments under Proclamation No. 1156-2011

Court: Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Supreme Court Cassation Division
Case No.: 241758
Date: June 28, 2015 E.C.
Justices:

  • Birhanu Amenew
  • Reta Tolossa
  • Bewketu Belay
  • Kene’a Kitata
  • Nuredin Kedir
    Applicant: St. Gabriel Catholic Health Center
    Respondent: St. Gabriel Catholic Health Center Basic Workers’ Union

Core Issue:
The case examines whether professional on-call allowances qualify as overtime payments under Proclamation No. 1156/2011. The applicant argues they are distinct, while the respondent asserts that on-call duties beyond regular hours should be compensated as overtime.

Case Progression:

  1. Labor Dispute Board Decision (September 26, 2015 E.C.):
    • Ruled that on-call work beyond regular hours constitutes overtime.
    • Ordered the applicant to pay allowances per Article 68 of the Proclamation and include them in the collective agreement.
  2. Federal High Court Appellate Division (January 16, 2015 E.C.):
    • Upheld the Labor Dispute Board’s decision.
  3. Cassation Appeal (May 30, 2015 E.C.):
    • The applicant argued:
      • On-call duties are separate from overtime under Article 69(4) of the Proclamation.
      • Its compensatory rest arrangements are more beneficial than the Proclamation’s provisions.
      • The board’s decision misinterpreted the law and could harm its humanitarian operations.

Supreme Court Cassation Division’s Ruling:

  1. Errors Identified:
    • The conciliator lacked health sector expertise.
    • Insufficient investigation into working hours, sector-specific practices, and compliance with Proclamation No. 1156/2011.
  2. Outcome:
    • Reversed the decisions of the Labor Dispute Board and Federal High Court.
    • Remanded the case to the Labor Dispute Board to assign a qualified conciliator, conduct thorough investigations, and issue a new decision.
    • Each party bears their own costs for the cassation proceeding.

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Key Labor Law Cases in Ethiopia: Jurisdiction, Termination, Wages, and Bonuses

Introduction Ethiopian labor law, primarily governed by the Labor Proclamation No. 377/1996 (as amended by Proclamations No. 466/1997 and No. 1156/2011 ), establishes a structured framework for resolving employment disputes. This blog post examines pivotal cassation cases that clarify critical legal rules related to jurisdiction, termination, wage deductions, wage increases, and bonus eligibility. These cases highlight the importance of adhering to statutory procedures and respecting the administrative framework of employers under Ethiopian law. Case No. 192951: Jurisdiction in Individual Employment Disputes Key Legal Rule : Under Labor Proclamation No. 377/1996 (as amended), individual employment disputes are subject to a single level of appeal, with the regional high court’s decision being final unless a fundamental legal error is identified by a cassation bench. Applying regional laws, such as Oromia Proclamation No. 216/2011 , to extend appellate jurisdiction beyond this framewo...
Post a Comment
Read more

Key Ethiopian Labor Law Cases: Work Certificates, Wages, and Employment Rights

Introduction Ethiopian labor law, primarily governed by Proclamation No. 377/1996 and its amendments ( Proclamation No. 1156/2011 ), provides a robust framework for addressing employment disputes. This blog post examines key cassation cases that clarify legal obligations regarding work experience certificates, wage disputes, termination procedures, and employee rights during business restructuring. These cases underscore the importance of statutory compliance and procedural fairness in Ethiopia’s labor law framework. Work Experience Certificates Case No. 215642 (Dec 27, 2015 E.C.): Pilot Work Experience Certificates Key Legal Rule : Per Case No. 111337 and Article 12(8) of Proclamation No. 1156/2011 , employers are not required to include flight hours in a pilot’s work experience certificate. This interpretation remains consistent with the law’s intent, and no legal basis exists to amend it. Context and Outcome : The cassation bench upheld the prior ruling that flight hours are not ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Navigating Dismissal: Key Rules in Ethiopian Employment Law

Understanding the grounds for lawful employee dismissal is crucial for both employers and employees in Ethiopia. Ethiopian labor law, as interpreted through various court cases, establishes specific rules regarding termination, particularly concerning dismissal without notice and insufficient reasons. Let's break down some key principles illuminated by recent legal precedents. Dismissal as Retaliation is Illegal Case No. 105921 sets a clear precedent: an employer cannot terminate an employee for asserting a legitimate legal right. In this instance, dismissing an employee for claiming their rightful bonus under Article 26(2)(c) of Proclamation No. 377/96 was deemed unlawful. This underscores that dismissal must be based on valid, justifiable reasons related to the employee's conduct or the employer's operational needs, not as a punitive measure for exercising legal entitlements. Strict Rules on Absenteeism Justify Dismissal Without Notice Several cases highlight the stringe...
Post a Comment
Read more