- Devonald v Rosser & Sons
-
Devonald v Rosser & Sons 
Court Court of Appeal Citation(s) [1906] 2 KB 728 Case opinions Lord Alverston CJ Keywords Employment contract Devonald v Rosser & Sons [1906] 2 KB 728 is a UK labour law case concerning the contract of employment. It held that an implied term of employment contracts is that when there is no work available to be done, the employer must bear the risk by continuing to pay wages.
Contents
Facts
In a test case, Mr Devonald was a tinplate rollerman at Rosser & Sons’ factory in Cilfrew, South Wales. He was paid for each completed box of 112 tin plates. His contract said he was required to do the tasks set by the employer and that he would get 28 days notice before termination. Unfortunately, tinplates were in decline and the employer announced the plant would close in two weeks. There was a six week period, therefore, when the employer gave no work. The question was whether the employer had to pay, given that payment was really according to piece.
Judgment
Lord Alverston CJ (deciding a few months just after the 1906 general election) held that the contract was in fact a time service contract and that the employee did not bear the risk of plant closure.
“ No distinction in principle can be drawn between wages by time and wages by piece. Piece work is only a method of ascertaining the amount of the wages which is to be paid to the workman… On the one hand we must consider the matter from the point of view of the employers who I agree will under ordinary circumstance desire to carry their works at a profit… On the other hand, we have to consider the position of the workman. The workman has to live. ” Lord Alverston CJ went on to say that if there was a notice period, the worker could be bound to the employer for the time and unable to go and earn any wages at all.
“ I agree with Jelf J that that is an unreasonable contention from the workman’s point of view. In my opinion the necessary implication to be drawn from this contract is at least that the master will find a reasonable amount of work up to the expiration of a notice given in accordance with the contract. …it seems that there is nothing unreasonable in the implication that the master shall look at least twenty-eight days ahead, or, to take the extreme case, as the notice has to be given on the first Monday in the month, fifty-seven days ahead, so as to place himself in a position to provide the workman with work during the period covered by the notice.
” See also
Employment contract cases Gisda Cyf v Barratt [2010] UKSC 41Devonald v Rosser & Sons [1906] 2 KB 728Sagar v Ridehalgh & Sons Ltd [1931] 1 Ch 310Wiluszynski v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [1989] ICR 439Secretary of State for Employment v ASLEF (No 2) [1972] ICR 19Dryden v Greater Glasgow Health Board [1992] IRLR 469French v Barclays Bank plc [1998] EWCA Civ 1092Alexander v Standard Telephones Ltd (No 2) [1991] IRLR 287Kaur v MG Rover Group Ltd [2004] EWCA 1507Wilsons and Clyde Coal Ltd v English [1938] AC 57Wilson v Racher [1974] ICR 428Mahmud and Malik v BCCI SA [1997] UKHL 23Transco plc v O’Brien [2002] EWCA Civ 379Rigby v Ferodo Ltd [1988] ICR 29Cresswell v Board of Inland Revenue [1984] ICR 508Johnstone v Bloomsbury Health Authority [1991] 2 All ER 293Henry v London Greater Transport Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 488Robertson v British Gas Corp [1983] ICR 351see Employment contract in English law - UK labour law
- Employment contract in English law
- Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41
- Fortune v National Cash Register Co, 373 Mass 96, 364 NE 2d 1251 (1977) terminating an employee’s employment shortly before a large commission on sales fell due breached an obligation to perform the contract in good faith.
Notes
References
External links
Categories:- United Kingdom labour case law
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
