OUTLINED Duties and Rights of the Employer and Employee

Duties and Rights of the Employer and Employee

Sources Of The Employer’s Duties
The duties agreed on or imposed on the employer in a contract of service is derived from a multiplicity of sources which can be expressed in terms of legal and extra legal sources. Wherever employer workers relationship exists, whether express or implied and if it is express, whether oral or written, the employer owes certain duties to the employee. These duties may be expressly provided for in the terms of the contract of employment or implied into the terms even though not expressly stated.

The employer’s duties to his employee basically come under the common law and under statutes. The Received English Common Law which involves the principles of equity and statutes of general application inforce in England as at 1st January 1900, which were received into Nigeria through the various receptions laws, introduced some duties into the employer-employee relationship. Besides the received English Laws, there are also statutes which regulated employment relationships between master and servant. These statutes include: The factories Act, NigeriaLabour Act, Trade Union Act,the Trade Dispute Act, Occupational Health and Safety Act No 85 of 1993, Pensions Act 1990, Wages Legislation and the employee’s Compensation Act. There are also Nigerian case laws bordering on the duties of the employer to his employee, though derived from the common law. Employers also have a duty of care to the employees under the following international instruments; Fatal Accident Law of the states, National environment Standards and Regulatory Enforcement Agency Act (NESREA) 2007, International Labour Organization Conventions and Recommendations.

2.2    THE COMMON LAW DUTIES

It had earlier been noted that the duties of both parties are fixed partly by the express terms of the contract, and partly by the terms which can be implied or will be held to be necessary and important depending on the nature of the contract.

Paramount among the duties of the employer at common law is the duty to take reasonable care for the safety of his worker’. This duty under the common law is usually divided into three, namely:

•    Provision of safe plant, including safe equipment, tools, materials and appliances in the workplace.

•    Provision of safe and secure system of work, that is, a safe process

•    Provision of the employee with reasonably competent fellow employees.

2.2.1 Duty to make available proper tools and plants for work: The employer is under the duty to supply proper tools and maintain the necessary plants that will aid the employee in his service to him. The employer may be in breach of his duty by failing to provide the required plant at all, failing to provide the quality of plants required for the job, providing dangerous of defective plants when he knew or ought to have known of the danger or defect.30 In LOVELL V. BLUNDELLS AND CROMPTON & CO. LTD,31 the employer was found not to have provided the needed plants for the employee’s work. In BOWATER V. ROWLEY REGIS COOPERATION32, the action against the cooperation was upheld by the court of Appeal on the ground that the cooperation had been negligent in supplying defective and dangerous plant for the work. Even where the tools are purchased from a reputable dealer and an employer has knowledge of its dangerous character,
he is liable to his servant who is injured as was the position in the case of TAYLOR V. ROVER CO. LTD.33This obligation is a continuing obligation.34

2.2    SAFE PLACE OF WORK
It is the duty of the employer to provide a safe working environment for his employee, where the employee will be safe to carryout his work effectively. If place of work is an industry with plants for carrying out production, the place should be fenced round and should be good premises.

2.2.3    SAFE AND SECURE SYSTEM OF WORK AND SUPERVISION
It is the obligation of the employer to draw up a system of how work is to be done, the persons to do the work, when a particular thing is and is not to be done. The administrative system must satisfy the condition of reasonability, hence, the House of Lord’s decision in WILSON & CLYDE COAL LTD V. ENGLISH35 that the duty as to safe system is a personal duty which a master owes to his worker, a duty he cannot delegate in such a way as to absolve him from personal liability.

2.2.4 COMPETENT STAFF WITH REASONABLY COMPETENT FELLOW EMPLOYEES
The employer must act reasonably or exercise reasonable care to employ reasonably competent and proficient staff and also competent fellow employees. The employer must therefore select competent and suitably qualified people to do his work, providing training and necessary instructions as the case may be. He must ensure that those in charge have the knowledge and  ability to see that the work is done safely. He must make sure that no staff constitutes danger to other workers, and if any does, the employer must take necessary precautions to avert the danger. As the court stated in the case of HUDSON, V. RIDGE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD,36per Streatfield, J.:
“If a fellow workman… by his habitual conduct is likely to prove a source of danger to his fellow employees, a duty lies fairly and squarely on the employers to remove the source of dangers”.
In SMITH v. CROSSLEY BROTHERS LTD,37 the court however re-emphasized that the duty to provide competent staff includes the duty to supervise them properly.

2.3    THE STATUTORY DUTIES
In Nigeria, statutes have also imposed additional liability on the employer for the sake of his employee. It had earlier been noted that statutes are sources of the employer’s duties. The employee does not have to prove that his employer acted negligently here, he only has to show that statute imposes a duty on the employer, that the duty is owed to him, that a Breach of the duty has been committed by the employer and that the breach has caused him damage. The rationale for these strict duties imposed on the employer is to protect the employee because a plaintiff (employee) may succeed in an action for breach of statutory duty even if he would have failed at common law.
2.3.1    Adequate training of Workers:
There is an imposed duty on the employer to train workers under his care and employ. This is to enable the workers work efficiently and be up to date on new invensions, especially persons employed in factories. The employer must most especially provide adequate training of workers or any person or persons to be assigned to operate machines, so as to ensure their safety at work. This is to comply with the provision in Section 23 of the Factories Act.
2.3.2    Payment of Wages
The payment of wages to the employee must be made in legal tender like cheque, cash or postal order as provided in LabourAct38 which states thus:
“Subject to this section, the wages of a worker shall in all contracts be made payable in Legal tender and not otherwise and if in any contract the whole or any part of the wages of a worker is made payable in any other manner, the contrary shall be illegal, and void”.
The payments should be made with regular periodicity like daily, weekly, fortnightly, or monthly but no longer than monthly without illegal deductions.
2.3.3    Provision of safe sanitary and humane `    conditions of work
Sections 28, 29, 55, 60, 65, 66 of the Labour Act 1974 provides for Labour health. The employer is statutorily imposed with the responsibility to provide and maintain at all times safe sanitary systems for the employee so as to ensure that they work under humane conditions. The employer has the duty to medically examine workers being recruited before commencement of work or as soon as possible thereafter.39

2.3.4    Annual holiday with pay
The employer is under a statutory duty to grant periodical leave with pay to the employee. Pregnant women are to be granted maternity leave. However, they must tender medical certificate given by any registered medical practitioner stating that confinement will probably take place within six weeks.

A pregnant married woman on maternity leave is to be paid not less than fifty per cent of the wages she should have earned if she had not been absent. If she is nursing her child, she must be allowed half an hour, twice a day during her working hours for that purpose.

2.3.5    Sick leave
The employer may in certain circumstances request that the employee be examined by a medical practitioner nominated by him before granting leave to the employee, up to twelve working days in one calendar year where the sickness is of a temporary nature but certified by a registered medical practitioner. Where the sickness becomes so serious as to frustrate the objects for which the employee was engaged, the contract of employment may be discharged and the employer will be absolved from further liability without prejudice to the earned entitlement before the discharge.

Download Full Material-N5000

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Post

BRAND PROTECTION AND TRADEMARK LAW IN NIGERIA. CURBING COUNTERFEITS IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY

BRAND PROTECTION AND TRADEMARK LAW IN NIGERIA. CURBING COUNTERFEITS IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY

Abstract

Following the changed economic and socio-political environment in Nigeria since 29th May, 1999, there has been an increasing consciousness for the protection of intellectual properties and trade marks inclusive, under the new and more investor-friendly atmosphere due to the counterfeiting of trade marks. Despite the fight against counterfeiting, estimates put the losses from counterfeiting suffered by trade mark owners doing business in Nigeria in billions of naira. The continuous thrive of trade marks counterfeiting has greatly hampered economic and industrial growth and development in areas I call: “Red Trading Zones”. There is therefore a dire need to structure an effective anti-counterfeiting strategy to combat the menace of trade marks counterfeiting.

ORIGINAL PRICE N15,000

Download Full Material-N5000

AN APPRAISAL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF PROOF IN THE HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF ELECTION PETITION IN NIGERIA

AN APPRAISAL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF PROOF IN THE HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF ELECTION PETITION IN NIGERIA

Abstract:

Election petition is the only viable and recognized alternative open to any person or party dissatisfied with the conduct of an election under our laws to ventilate his or her grievance(s). Over the years litigants/petitioners have continued to patronize the election petition tribunals/courts with minimal or no success as most of the petitions ended up being thrown out for noncompliance with the applicable electoral legislation or want of proof. What provoked this research was the need for an appraisal of the requirement of proof in the hearing and determination of election petition with a view to unearthing why it is a near impossibility to prove election petition anchored on some grounds. This research adopts a doctrinal method. Relevant legislations, textbook, literature and particularly case laws are explored for a good understanding of the requirements of proof under the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended. Although there is an attempt by the Electoral Act 2010 as amended to address the issue of time frame for hearing and determination of petition, it failed to address the age long agitation of technicalities in the dispensation of electoral justice. The requirements that noncompliance must not only be substantial but must substantially affect the result of the election and sundry other requirements of proof appear to be a clog in the proof of election petition. It is advocated that electoral umpire and judges should uphold substantial justice over and above technicalities. The requirement of proof of noncompliance should be made optional and a mid-course approach should be adopted in proof of corrupt practices instead of proof beyond reasonable doubt as currently practiced. The thesis contains more revelations and startling recommendations

Download Full Material-N5000

PROVOCATION AS A DEFENSE TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY: THE NIGERIAN PERSPECTIVE

PROVOCATION AS A DEFENSE TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY: THE NIGERIAN PERSPECTIVE

ABSTRACT
One of the defences open to an accused which may exculpate or mitigate him from criminal liability is provocation. The law recognizes that human beings are prone to losing their control under extreme rage and should they react violently, justice demands that account be taken of this natural tendency of theirs in inflicting punishment. The defence of provocation is available to an accused as a mitigating defence rather than an absolute one because much as the law recognizes human weakness, it does not condone human ferocity.
This project work shall attempt a detailed examination of provocation as a defence to criminal liability largely concentrating on the Nigerian perspective.
In order to achieve this objective, the work is divided thus:Chapter one will give a general introduction to provocation, what is a crime, elements of crime, criminal liability, the definition of provocation as defence, the defences which are open to an accused under the Nigerian criminal justice system, the historical development of the defence of provocation and also the justification for the defence of provocation. Chapter two will cover expressly the defence of provocation under the Nigerian Law, the elements that sufficiently constitute provocation and the offences to which provocation is a defence under Nigerian Law, it will also cover an analysis of some of the Nigerian cases on the defence of provocation. Chapter three will focus on the restrictions and limitations of provocation as a defence, the rule of proportionality as a limitation to the plea of provocation, the reasonable man’s test, the issue of retreat and provocation by a third party, Chapter four will focus on the conclusion and recommendation.
The methodology of the research is Doctrinal, Analytical and Argumentative. Information shall be sought from law libraries and the internet. Recourse shall be made to books, journals, law reports and statutes.
TABLE OF CONTENT
TITLE PAGE i
CERTIFICATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
TABLE OF STATUTES vi
TABLE OF CASES vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xv
TABLE OF CONTENT xvii
ABSTRACT xix
CHAPTER ONE 1
PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.2 CRIME 4
1.3 ELEMENTS OF CRIME 18
1.4 THE PRINCIPLE OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY 23
1.5 DEFINITION OF PROVOCATION AS A DEFENCE 29
1.6 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEFENSE OF PROVOCATION 31
1.7 JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION 37
CHAPTER TWO 43
THE DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION UNDER NIGERIA LAW 43
2.2 DEFINITION OF PROVOCATION UNDER NIGERIA LAW 45
2.2 ELEMENTS OF PROVOCATION UNDER NIGERIA LAW 51
2.2.1 THE PROVOCATIVE ACT 53
2.2.2 LOSS OF SELF-CONTROL 79
2.2.3 RULE OF PROPORTIONALITY 85
2.3 OFFENCES TO WHICH PROVOCATION IS A DEFENCE 88
2.3.2 ASSAULT 91
2.3.3 MANSLAUGHTER 93
2.3.4 DEFAMATION OFFENCES AND MALICIOUS DAMAGE 93
2.4 AN ANALYSIS OF SOME OF THE NIGERIAN CASES ON PROVOCATION DEFENCE 94
CHAPTER THREE 105
RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION 105
3.1 THE RULE OF PROPORTIONALITY 107
3.2 THE REASONABLE MAN’S TEST 115
3.3 THE ISSUE OF RETREAT 131
CHAPTER FOUR 141
4.1 CONCLUSION 141
4.2 RECOMMENDATION 144Download Full Material-N5000