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

The Settlement of Individual and Collective Labour Disputes under Ethiopian Labour Law

Hiruy Wubie [*] E-Journal of International and Comparative LABOUR STUDIES DOWNLOAD PDF Introductory Remarks The settlement of labour disputes is a precondition for a harmonious working environment. Clarity of laws governing labour relations, as well as their consistent and adequate implementation, contributes to the establishment of a dependable system of dispute settlement. Pursuant to Ethiopian labour law, labour disputes are classified as individual and collective, and a number of bodies are in charge of resolving these disputes. Yet confusion on the criteria used to draw a distinction between individual and collective labour disputes brings about major issues in terms of interpretation and implementation of relevant legal rules and judicial decisions.
5 comments
Read more

Judicial Limitations on Employer’s Power of Transfer of Workers

In almost all levels of the judiciary, one could hardly find any decision interpreting or applying the provisions of the labour proclamation dealing with variation of employment contract. It is not because they didn’t encounter disputes relating to variation, rather the reason lies in their failure to relate the law with the relevant facts of the case. Variation implies making changes to the terms and conditions of the contract. Two important elements of the terms and conditions are the job duties and work location. A contract of employment is a legally binding agreement: the two parties are bound by its terms and it is enforceable in law. An employer wishing to make changes should first obtain consent of the worker. 
Post a Comment
Read more