CORRESPONDENCE
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1962.tb00693.x |
| Date | 01 July 1962 |
| Published date | 01 July 1962 |
CORRESPONDENCE
TXIE
EDITOR,
The
Modem
Law
Redew.
Sir,
I
was interested
to
read
Mrs.
Aikin's illuminating coninientaryl upon the
inconsistencies and unworkable proposals of the thoroughly unsatisfactory
report on the Truck Acts.
If I
may be permitted to take the criticism one stage further,
I
would
point out that the Cornlittee's proposal was not that future legislation should
apply
to
"
all employeegV'
*
but
to
''
all persons employed under a contract of
service."s
Whilst this
would
widen the scope of the Acts in one direction,
it
would reduce it
in
another for the present definition
of
workmen includes
persons
not employed under
a
contract of service.
Further,
in
dealing with the question
of
deductions,
the
Committee
thought4 that the Acts prevent deductions which appear desirable both to
employers and workers, and instanced,
inter
alia,
payment for transport, and
for
protective clothing
or
tools. Whilst it
is
true that the scope
of
exceptions
permitted under the Acts
of
1881
and
1896
is uncertain, do not these instances
fall withim them? The provision of transport falls within section
8
(1)
(c)
of
the
1896
Act-see
Roddy
P
.
Corporation
of
Londonderry.5
Certainly
a
new inquiry
ie
necessary.
Is
it too much to hope that it
will
start on
a
sound
basis
with
a
comprehensive survey of the present law? One
docs
not expect elementary errors of this nature in
a
report which took two
years to produce.
Yours
faithfully,
M.
A.
Hxcx~xxo.
Faculty
of
Law&,
Univerdty
of
London,
King%
cob##.
1
(1961)
a6
M.L.R.
216.
2
An
recorded
by
Mrs.
&kin
at
p.
216,
224).
a
Para.
47,
p.
20;
Summary
of
#ecommendationr.
p.
82.
4
Para
14
3
[lead.]
i.f*
:7%.
To continue reading
Request your trial