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

The Legal Effect of Transfer of Undertaking through Foreclosure on Employees Right: Cassation Case No.: 33314

Legal Rule (Interpretation of Law):

1.    Transfer of Ownership vs. Assumption of Obligations: When a bank forecloses on a business and takes possession of it, this does not automatically mean the bank assumes all the obligations of the previous owner, especially concerning employment contracts. The key factor is why the bank took possession. If it's simply to sell the assets and recover the debt (as in this case), the bank is not obligated to continue the business or honor pre-existing employment contracts.

2.    Purpose of Foreclosure: The purpose of foreclosure under Proclamations 97/90 and 98/90 is for the bank to recover its loan by selling the collateral, not to take over and run the business indefinitely. The bank's actions must be consistent with this purpose.

3.    Employee Rights in Business Transfer: While Article 16 of Proclamation 377/96 (the Labor Proclamation) protects employee rights when a business changes ownership, this protection applies when the business continues to operate. It does not apply when the bank takes possession solely to liquidate the assets and has no intention of continuing the business operation. In such cases, the bank is not considered a successor employer.

4.    Distinction between Ownership Transfer and Asset Liquidation: It's crucial to distinguish between a transfer of ownership where the business continues to operate, and a situation where the bank takes possession only to liquidate assets. In the latter case, the bank's role is similar to that of a secured creditor realizing its collateral; it is not assuming the role of an employer.

5.    No Contractual Relationship: If there is no employment contract between the bank and the employees, and the bank's possession of the business is solely for the purpose of asset liquidation, there is no legal basis for holding the bank liable for the previous owner's employment obligations.

6.    Previous Owner's Responsibility: The employees' claims for unpaid wages and severance should be directed toward the previous owner of the business, who was their employer at the time the obligations accrued. The bank, having taken possession only for liquidation, is not responsible for these pre-existing debts.

Labels:

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