Economic and Labour Relations Method †Free Samples to Students

Question: Discuss about the Economic and Labour Relations Method. Answer: Introduction: According to the partnership act 1891 (SA), a partnership may be formed expressly or impliedly. What was the intention of the parties? Did they share profits and losses? Have both parties had a voice in management? Is there continuity in trading activities? In the case study Peking Duck Restaurant, the owner Alan and lender Bing, have failed to communicate effectively and correctly to clearly outline the terms, nature and authority of their deal. Although a deal has been struck, the contract is extremely vague, creating issues regarding ownership. The contract states that the lender, Bing, will receive a 40% share of profits and losses. This means there was a relationship formed with a view for profit. This, as well as, already having a private friendship shows a level of fiduciary. The contract also states that the lender has the right to any major decisions regarding the business. When Alan and Bing both agree that the way to improve trade is to refurnish the restaurant, they are effectively showing they are making joint decisions, to enhance profits and increase sales. According to the partnership act 1891, this means Bing has a voice in management, a key indicator to a partnership. When Alan and Bing decide to purchase furniture with the money Bing has provided, they now have common ownership of property according to the partnership act 1891. A partnership indicator is a continuity and repetition of trade. With Bing spending considerable time at the restaurant, suppliers have come to know him as a partner. This means according to the partnership act they have been dealing with him continuously and repetitively. The sharing of profits and losses, having a voice in management repetition of trading activities, common ownership and having a common view to profit are all direct legal indicators that Alan and Bing are in a legally binding partnership. The conduct carried out between these parties, in both case studies, clearly show a partnership has been formed. With Bing spending considerable time at the restaurant and their agreement on refurnishing the restaurant, their conduct towards each other is civil and professional. A partnership indicator. Their failures here are not drawing up a clear contract, stating terms, authority, duties and obligations and dispute resolutions. Agreeing to partnership means that each partner can be actively acting on behalf of the other partner as well as their own. Bing purchasing the leather chairs is a case of working on behalf of Alan while he is away on holiday. Alan has shown a level of fiduciary towards Bing when he agreed to go into partnership together. As the chairs are produced for the beneficiary of the restaurant that they co-own, using business funds is appropriate and acceptable. While Alan is away, Bing can act as an agent on Alans behalf and has implied authority. This means Bing can buy and sell on behalf of the partnership. This allows Bing to purchase the chairs without having to consult Alan beforehand. A partnership allows all partners to have apparent authority to act on behalf of the others. This means that partners will be liable for the actions of another partner relating to the partnership business- including debts occurred. Bing has used his apparent authority to purchase the chairs as he has purchased them for restaurant. He has not personally profited from his position, nor is it a conflict of interest. Bing does have an obligation to notify Alan of any activities that affect the business which he has failed to do so until Alan returned from holiday. While there has been a communication break down while Alan has been on holiday, Bings use of implied authority and apparent authority allows him to act as an agent on Alans behalf and therefore Peking Duck Restaurant is liable for the expense of the chairs. What is the legal determination of what constitutes an employee? An employee is defined as a person who is hired by an employer to perform a service. Although Sarah is a uni student and only works when she is available (casual) and she is hired to complete a service for Peking Duck Restaurant. Sarah has been receiving a wage of 150$ a day. If this is paid directly to Sarah without her having to invoice Peking Duck Restaurant seeking debts owed for services, then this is a clear legal indication that she is an employee, not a contractor. When an employee, or a contractor, is conducting services in a workplace, it is the workplaces responsibility to provide a safe place of work. This would involve placing controls into the work area to protect employees from harm and risk. Controls such as documentation, stating safe work practices, hazard analysis and permits should be in place to assist employees in understanding what safety measures and work practises are required. The injury Sarah received during work hours and while being an employee, entitles her to workers compensation. Workers compensation legislation states that compensation and rehabilitation will be provided to an employee who has suffered a work-related injury. Sarahs broken arm was suffered at work, whilst working and in work hours. As an employee, who receives wages from Peking Duck Restaurant, she should receive compensation and rehabilitation. Peking Duck Restaurant must have workers compensation insurance that covers their employees, according to the workers compensation and rehabilitation act 1986. The restaurant was negligent in providing a safe work place by not cleaning up the spill or putting up signage regarding the wet floor to notify people of the hazard. Therefore, the restaurant will be required to pay for Sarahs loss of wages and medical bills until she is fit to return to work. Tully is a Peking Duck Restaurant employee on a regular employment contract. As an employee of the restaurant, Tully has a legal obligation to faithfully and obediently carry out tasks assigned to them. She must not disclose the employers trade secrets and other information. Tully sharing the restaurants special recipes is a clear breach of her contract and against the law. She must not help her employers competitors nor take advantage of information for personal benefit. Considering there is evidence to show there has been a decline in customers since this has happened, then Peking Duck Restaurant have every right to terminate her contract. This is on the grounds of a breach of confidence. They may terminate her contract, without notice, due to this breach of contract. Peking Ducks special recipe is a trade secret and requires the strictest confidence to be kept. The restaurants evidence of disloyalty, must be clear and concise about the specific special recipe and not general and v ague. There must be evidence that the special recipe is now being used by its competitors for their advantage and clear evidence that that recipe was provided by Tully from Peking Duck. If this is in direct correlation with a change in customer number then Peking Duck Restaurant can terminate Tullys employment immediately and sue her for loss of income and damages. Tully will then be required to pay these damages to Peking Duck to the amount of the losses acquired during that period. She may also receive a fine. References https://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1332context=blr A Submission To The Australian Parliament Trojan Horse Clauses: Investor-State Dispute Settlement Dr Matthew Rimmer Australian Research Council Future Fellow Associate Professor The Australian National University College Of Law The Australian National University College of Law, Canberra, ACT, 0200 https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/forms-and-resources/case-studies Kiel, G, Kolsen, HT Smith, C . (2000). Investigating the Economic Cost of Injury in the Workplace: A Case Study Approach. The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 11 (1), 108-135.