SPARE TIME ACTIVITIES OF EMPLOYEES
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1946.tb01014.x |
| Published date | 01 October 1946 |
| Author | W. Arthur Lewis |
| Date | 01 October 1946 |
280
SPARE-TIME ACTIVITIES
OF
EMPLOYEES
AN
ECONOMIST‘S
COMMENT
ON
liivac, Ltd.
v.
Park Rogal
Scientific Instruments, Ltd.,
[l946]
1
All
E.R.
350
DR.
KAHN-FREUND’S
article deals with three issues suggested
by this most interesting case.
(1)
The duty of fidelity;
(2)
the effect of spare-time activities on the employee’s work
;
and
(8)
statutory and other control
of
hours. They are best
considered separately.
(I)
THE DUTY OF FIDELITY
The case turned on this issue and this issue only, as the
question
of
imparting confidential information, which was
raised, was deliberately set aside as not being
a
part
of
the
evidence.
Lord Greene stated the issue quite concisely
([1946]
1
All
E.R.
350,
at
p.
356):
‘As
I
see it, the Court stands
in
a
sense between Scylla and Charybdis, because it would be
most unfortunate if anything we said,
or
any other Court
said, should place an undue restriction on the right of the
workman, particularly
a
manual workman, to dake use of his
leisure for his profit. On the other hand, it would be deplor-
able if it were laid down that
a
workman could consistently
with
his
duty to his employer, knowingly, deliberately and
secretly set himself to do
in
his spare time something which
would inflict great harm on his employer’s business.
I
have
endeavoured to raise the questions
in
the way that they
appeal to
me
and, on the best consideration
I
can give
to
the matter,
I
think that the plaintiffs are
prima
facie
right
in this case.’
The legal duty of fidelity requires an employee not to work
for a competitor where this would inflict great harm on his
employer’s business. There
is
no restriction on spare-time
work if
it
inflicts no such harm, even
if
it
is
work
for
a
com-
petitor.
For
example,
if
the plaintiffs had been, not thc
sole manufacturers of Ilearing aids in this country, but one
of
a
thousand equally sniall manufacturers, they would have
been hard put to it to
prove
that their employees’ action in
helping
to
build up thr 2,001st firm inflicted any substantial
harm on their business.
1
MoD.L.REv.,
Vol.
9,
p.
145.
To continue reading
Request your trial