Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Interpretation of Statutes Case Law

    Uploaded by

    Saleha Waqar
    25 views2 pages
    The document discusses the dismissal of employees who were on strike under the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974. It considers two options for interpreting the phrase "employees who took part in that [strike]" under the literal rule of statutory interpretation. The first option is that it refers to all employees who originally took part in the strike, even if some later returned to work. The second option is that it refers only to employees still striking when others returned. Applying the first option means all striking employees would be dismissed consistently. The second option risks claims of unfair dismissal as not all original strikers would be dismissed.

    Original Description:

    Case Study Interpretations of Statutes

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses the dismissal of employees who were on strike under the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974. It considers two options for interpreting the phrase "employees who took part in that [strike]" under the literal rule of statutory interpretation. The first option is that it refers to all employees who originally took part in the strike, even if some later returned to work. The second option is that it refers only to employees still striking when others returned. Applying the first option means all striking employees would be dismissed consistently. The second option risks claims of unfair dismissal as not all original strikers would be dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    25 views2 pages

    Interpretation of Statutes Case Law

    Uploaded by

    Saleha Waqar
    The document discusses the dismissal of employees who were on strike under the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974. It considers two options for interpreting the phrase "employees who took part in that [strike]" under the literal rule of statutory interpretation. The first option is that it refers to all employees who originally took part in the strike, even if some later returned to work. The second option is that it refers only to employees still striking when others returned. Applying the first option means all striking employees would be dismissed consistently. The second option risks claims of unfair dismissal as not all original strikers would be dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Stock v Frank Jones (Tipton) Ltd [1978] 1 WLR 231; [1978] 1All ER 948

    This case concerned the dismissal of employees who were on strike. Under the Trade Union
    and Labour Relations Act 1974 an employee who was dismissed for striking could not
    claim unfair dismissal unless ‘one or more of the employees, who also took part in that
    [strike], were not dismissed for taking part’. So all employees taking part in the strike had
    to be treated the same way. If one employee, e.g., the shop steward, was victimised by being
    the only person dismissed, he could claim that the dismissal was unfair (which would be
    decided on the facts).

    In this case the employees were on strike and, following fairly normal industrial relations
    tactics, the employer threatened them with dismissal if they did not return to work. Some
    did return. The employer dismissed those who did not return and they claimed unfair
    dismissal.

    Q. Using the literal rule, what do you think the words ‘employees who took part in that
    [strike]’ mean? Do they mean:

    all the employees who originally took part in the [strike]? or


    those employees who were still taking part in the [strike] when some of the others had
    returned to work following the threat?

    What are the consequences of choosing each option?

    Answer:

    There are three different approaches to statutory interpretation, namely literal, golden and
    mischief rules. Every judge has their own preference hence the decision of the case may vary
    depending on which judge is hearing the case since all three approaches are likely to lead to very
    different results. In literal rule the courts take the plain, ordinary and literal meaning of the words
    when applying the statute to the facts and deciding the case. Literal rule has been the main rule
    applied however the application of this rule has led to many absurd decisions hence raising
    criticism.

    The first option is the correct application of the literal rule. Applying the literal rule to the case in
    question and taking into consideration the words ‘employees who took part in that (strike)’, they
    literally and explicitly mean all those employees who took part in the strike. These words leave
    no exception as to who took part in the strike and then later gave up. The words, ‘took part’
    includes all those who took part regardless of their preceding or following behaviour to the
    action mentioned in the statute when applying the literal rule for interpretation. Hence deciding
    the case using literal rule all the employees who took part in the strike regardless of the fact that
    they stopped protesting after a threat, will all be dismissed under and according to the statute.
    This way all the employees involved will be treated in a similar manner with no exceptions
    whatsoever.

    Choosing the second option would result in the dismissal of only those employees who kept
    protesting even after they were posed with a threat of the dismissal. Those employees who had
    given up the strike will be secure. This however is not the right application of the literal rule as
    not all the employees who ‘took part’ were dismissed and so can lead to future cases of unfair
    dismissal as all the employees who took part in the strike were not treated in a similar manner.

    You might also like