Your search
Results 23 resources
-
This chapter compares the historical development and use of criminal law at work in the United Kingdom and in Ontario, Canada. Specifically, it considers the use of the criminal law both in the master and servant regime as an instrument for disciplining the workforce and in factory legislation for protecting workers from unhealthy and unsafe working conditions, including exceedingly long hours work. Master and servant legislation that criminalized servant breaches of contract originated in the United Kingdom where it was widely used in the nineteenth century to discipline industrial workers. These laws were partially replicated in Ontario, where it had shallower roots and was used less aggressively. At the same time as the use of criminal law to enforce master and servant law was contested, legislatures in the United Kingdom and Ontario enacted protective factory acts limiting the length of the working day. However, these factory acts did not treat employer violations crimes; instead, they were treated as lesser ‘regulatory’ offences for which employers were rarely prosecuted.
-
In 1973 the Supreme Court of Canada issued a ruling in Murdoch v Murdoch, denying Irene “Ginger” Murdoch an interest in the cattle ranch that she and her husband, James Alexander “Alex” Murdoch, had built together over many years. Irene performed extensive manual labour on the farm, including driving, branding, vaccinating and de-horning cattle, haying, raking, and mowing. She often did this work alone due to long, off-ranch, work-related absences by Alex. When their marriage began to break down, Irene sought to receive her ownership interest in the ranch property. However, the certificate of title to the property showed that the land belonged solely to Alex Murdoch. For Irene to receive an interest in the property it would be necessary for a court to declare that a portion of the title to the ranch was held by Alex Murdoch in trust for his wife. The principal basis for finding such a trust, her lawyer argued, was her contribution through labour to the ranch operations. That argument was rejected at trial and ultimately also by the Supreme Court of Canada, which held that under existing Canadian law no property claim was available to Irene Murdoch in the circumstances of her case. --Introduction
-
This chapter focuses on the challenge that precarious employment in Canada’s labor force poses to protective labor law and policy, and thus to state policy more generally. Precarious employment is conceptualized as work for remuneration characterized by multiple dimensions of labor market insecurity, such as job uncertainty, low income, lack of control over the labor process, and higher risks of ill health. The chapter shows that these dimensions of insecurity are associated with particular forms of employment including self-employment, part-time forms of self- and paid employment, as well as temporary paid employment. In considering workers’ legal protections, the chapter focuses on three distinct domains: employment standards (ES), collective bargaining, and occupational health and safety (OHS). It demonstrates that precariously employed workers are vulnerable to ES violations, are less likely to benefit from laws that facilitate access to collective bargaining coverage, and tend to experience relatively high rates of injury and benefit less from OHS regulation.
Explore
Resource type
Publication year
-
Between 2000 and 2026
(23)
-
Between 2000 and 2009
(5)
- 2006 (5)
- Between 2010 and 2019 (15)
- Between 2020 and 2026 (3)
-
Between 2000 and 2009
(5)