The Argument. As agreed, the parties will not cite legal precedents but may refer to Xxxxx and Beatty, Palmer, etc. However, it is imperative that the relevant provisions of the Collective Agreement be canvassed by counsel to ensure that all relevant clauses are put before the arbitrator.
The Argument. The Parties will not cite legal precedents but may refer to Xxxxx and Xxxxxx, Xxxxxx, etc. However, it is imperative that the relevant provisions of the Collective Agreement be canvassed by each Party to ensure that all relevant clauses are put before the arbitrator.
The Argument. Unless otherwise mutually agreed, the parties will not cite legal precedents but may refer to authorities such as Xxxxx and Beatty, Palmer, etc. However, it is imperative that the relevant provisions of the Collective Agreement be canvassed to ensure that all relevant provisions are put before the mediator-arbitrator.
The Argument. As agreed, the parties will not cite legal precedents but may refer to Xxxxx and Beatty, Palmer, etc.
The Argument. It is imperative that the relevant provisions of the Collective Agreement be canvassed to ensure that all relevant clauses are put before the Arbitrator.
The Argument. The Parties will be limited to the usage of three (3) legal cases but may refer to Xxxxx and Beatty, Xxxxxx, etc. However, it is imperative that the relevant provisions of the Collective Agreement be canvassed by each Party to ensure that all relevant clauses are put before the arbitrator.
The Argument. As agreed, the parties will not cite legal precedents but may refer to Xxxxx and Xxxxxx, Xxxxxx, etc.
The Argument. I shall, in brief state the arguments and submissions of the plaintiff and Defendant. Mr. Yada Xxxxxxxx Counsel for the Plaintiff in his argument submitted xx.xx the P!.1intiff is challenging Sections 26, 27, and 32 - 37 of the Act 1965. These sections impinge or violate Section 25 (i) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone. There argument is not that the right to Freedom of expression is unlimited; but that these' sections contravene Section 25(i) of the Constitution. He referred to several authorities in support of his argument and that the reasons given in these cases were that they were in conflict with the Constitution of the said countries which guarantees freedom of expression in a democratic state and whatever provision in the Constitution must be democratic and objective. He submitted further that we do not have to adhere to our local standard, but to universal standard. To uphold the limitation, the burden rest on those who create the limitation to justify it. Finally he submitted that Sec. 25 (ii) creates a limitation upon the freedom of expression the extent to which the freedom of expression can be limited. The , 9 government cannot go around limiting the freedom of expression even if the first "'" huddle is crossed, The limitation created should be justified in a democratic state. Xx. Xxxxxx: Counsel for the 1st defendant submitted that his colleague has conceded that freedom of expression cannot be unlimited. He submitted that the Plaintiff did not invoke the court's jurisdiction as provided under Section 124 of the Constitution; which empowers the court in all matters to interpret the Constitution. He cites the case of Pepper v Xxxx 1993 1A.E.R.P. 50 He submitted that there are multi dimensional rule of interpretation of statute. includes the ordinc1ry meaning of the word; plus the context of the legislation, the subject matter the scope and purpose. He submitted that when reading sec. 25 (i) of the constitution, it should be read in the context and subject matter in which sec. 25 (i) of the constitution - the recognition and protection of fundamental human rights. It is essential to recognize the scope under sec. 25 (1) and the limitation provided under sec 25(11) of the Constitution. He submitted further where there is a legal restriction on the exercise of the freedom of expression under section 25 (i). That legal restriction is that of the Public Order Act 1965. He submitted that Public Order Act when read in its entirety provides the mech...
The Argument. It was argued that another important benefit associated with the FTA was of a potential increase of investments to Chile, due to the increased legal security for foreign investment and the improvement of the Chilean risk rating. This has been identified as one of the important achievements of a free trade agreement with the US. It was argued that the Free Trade Agreement with the United States takes Chile out of the “bad neighborhood” which is Latin America and thereby attracts foreign investment, not only from the USA, but from all other countries. The truth is that there is no evidence to show that the free trade agreement will improve Chile’s country risk rating. But even if it were to do so, Chile currently has a very low country risk rating. When compared to other countries in the region, Chile’s rating is comparatively much lower. Consequently, although this rating causes some impact, most probably it would be marginal. Without a doubt, legal security of investment will have an impact, mainly for investments from the United States. But as is true in the case of market access, the question is: What type of investments will this promote? Once again we go back to the discussion of the development strategy and whether a development strategy based on natural resources is viable. Finally, since increased legal security for investments from the United States represents a cost and gives a relative advantage over other countries, we ask the question: Does it really make sense to give greater legal security and thereby promote investment from the United States when historically the largest amount of investments come from that country? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to encourage investment from other countries, thus diversifying the materialized foreign investment in Chile? If the prediction that the free trade agreement with the United States will have an impact upon the investments in Chile, this will result more from the legal security associated with the FTA than from an improvement in the country risk rating. Notwithstanding, the question is regarding the kind of investments, which will be made because the profits of the businesses in Chile would not change due to the FTA, only the legal security of the investments will. Therefore the investment pattern will continue and will not change as a result of the free trade agreement.
The Argument. One of the areas of Just Cause in which the Union is particularly successful is the failure of Management to meet its obligation to conduct a fair, thorough, and objective in- vestigation prior to initiating discipline. Management must establish the facts not through presumption or assumption or reliance on other investigations. The supervisor who initiates discipline through a written request for discipline or drafts a disciplinary notice without such a request is the manager responsible for having investigated prior to the initiation. Checking records, reviewing statements and documents, interviewing witnesses, reviewing video tapes or photographs, listening to audio recordings, these are all possible elements of a supervisor's investigation. Many times, a supervisor does a minimal--at best--review of the situation which may include almost no first-hand investigation. When this occurs, that super- visor has violated one of the most basic, and important, due process rights of an employee subject to discipline. When management fails to uncover evidence and facts related to circumstances which result in discipline, they clearly fall short in their Just Cause obligation. However, the efforts man- agement employs to attempt to uncover evidence and facts is extremely important to our Just Cause defense--no matter what those efforts would or would not have revealed. Perhaps an employee is removed for sexual harassment of a customer. That removal is based upon a written letter received from the customer. In addition, the supervisor receives two let- ters from two other customers seemingly corroborating the first customer's letter. The super- visor fires the employee based upon the three letters. If the supervisor did not personally speak with those three customers whose letters he is relying upon to impose removal, then the investigation is inadequate and does not meet the Just Cause requirement. That supervi- sor had an obligation to contact and inquire. That is the "thorough" obligation. It is not enough to simply read letters and rush to judgement. Perhaps discussion with the three cus- tomers would have fully supported the letters and the action. No matter, the failure to thor- oughly establish the facts renders the investigation less than what is necessary to prove Just Cause. When arguing no Just Cause exists due to lack of a thorough, fair, and objective investiga- tion, the xxxxxxx must construct every avenue the supervisor could have, and reasonably sho...
