Stands Larceny Where it Did?
| Published date | 01 March 1966 |
| Date | 01 March 1966 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1966.tb01120.x |
MAR.
1966
NOTES
OF
CASES
208
false when prepared, as soon as
it
was issued
it
automatically
became accurate.
It
is therefore submitted that Lord Dcnning’s dictum cannot be
supported in terms of the general law of contract.la
Finally, assuming that Working Rule
6A
was incorporated into
the contracts of employment, whether by virtue of the notice
or
not, there remains the question
of
the precise obligation imposed
by
it.
The Rule reads as follows:
cc
Overtime
.
.
.
shall not
be
subject to restriction, but may be worked by mutual agreement
between the employer and the operatives concerned.”
In
its
original context (the National Joint Council) the Rule has
one clear meaning: that the unions
(or
the management) shall
not impose an official restriction on overtime. This obligation was
recognised by the Master of the Rolls.’7 The present restriction was,
however, unoillcial and the Rule required further interpretation.le
The Master
of
the Rolls was able to infer an obligation on the men
that they would not ofncinlly
or
unofncially impose a collective
embargo on overtime.” Davies
L.J.
did not find
it
necessary to
express a final opinion, but appears to have agreed with Lord
Denning. Russell
L.J.
on the other hand was not prepared to go
this far. Rule
6A,
in his opinion, represented an agreement by
the National Joint Council
not
to interfere, in this matter, with
the relationship between the employers and the workmen. Thus
in his view no breach of contract had been induced
or
procured.
The law of employment is in a state of considerable confusion-a
confusion which is not helped by the changing attitudes
of
the
courts. In the instant case the Court of Appeal was
cc
absten-
tionist
”
and
cc
interfering
”
at one and the same time, and, it is
submitted, on both occasions the grounds were too narrow. The
Royal Commission
on
Trade Unions and Employers’ Associations
has begun its deliberations none too soon. R.
P.
GRIME.
STANDS
LARCENY
WHERE
IT
DID?
IN
view of the decision in
Noon
v.
Smith
it
is pertinent to ask
whether the definition of larceny in section
1
(1)
of
the Larceny
Act
1010
has been amended by interpretation and whether the burden
10
Even within the terme
of
Lord Denning’e dictum,
it
may be argue!, that
Working Rule
BA
could not be incorporated. rate
of
wegoe, houre
of
work, holiday6 and holiday
It
would be diflicult
to
interpret this phr8Ee
80
88
t:,
cover
a
rule
4%
ovortime, which ie, by
definition, work outeide normal
17
Whether
EUCII
an
obligation ie legally enformable
is
not clear.
18
Furthermore tho obligation
on
the union could not be incorporated into the
contract
of
employment, evtp by Lord
Denning’e
method, which he himself
limits
to
thoeo RUIOE which
are
npplicablo to the omployee’e eituation.” An
obligation
on
the union not
to
take official action ie
no
more applicable to
an
individual workman than an agreement
by
the National Joint Council to
meet once
a
year.
The y;tice referred
to
houre
of
work.
1
[1904]
1
W.L.R.
14GO;
[1964]
9
All
E.R.
895.
To continue reading
Request your trial