Emplyment low - case study - Essay Example

Martins and Chemical Cosmetics Distributors: Martins is an employee of Chemical cosmetics, and the relationship that exists is that of a master/servant. Lord Wright in 1947 gave four elements that define the relationship between a master and a servant (Fudge and Erick, 37). These elements are ownership of the tools of trade by the employer, risk of making losses, chances of profiting from the association, and ability to control an employee. This was a ruling in the case involving Montreal Locomotive ltd against Montreal.

Fudge and Erick (51) observe that control as an issue in determining the relationship between an employee and an employer is controversial. In 1951, the court upheld that it is not a must for the notion of control to exist in a contract (Fudge and Erick, 53). This was in a ruling that involves the dispute between the ministry of Health, and an individual known as Cassidy. Lord Denningagrees with this notion in 1953. In the case involving Von Handel en Scheepvaart, and Slatford (Fudge and Erick, 39), the lord ruled that a servant participates in the affairs of the organization, and obedience of the organization ordersdoes not make him/ her a servant.

Chemical Cosmetics is legally responsible for the actions of Martins, and the court will award damages against them. In the case of Bazley vs. Curry, the court was of the opinion that an employer is legally responsible for the action of his employees, while they are on duty. This case was settled in 1999. Works Cited:Fudge, Judy, and Eric Tucker. Work on trial: Canadian labour law struggles. Toronto: Irwin Law for theOsgoode Society for Canadian Legal History, 2010. Print.