Law reports in England and Wales

In England and Wales, from the Year Books on, there is a complete series of reports of cases decided in the higher English courts down to the present time. The oldest reports are written in Latin. Until the nineteenth century, both the quality of early reports, and the extent to which the judge explained the facts of the case and his judgment, are highly variable, and the weight of the precedent may depend on the reputations of both the judge and the reporter. Such reports are now largely of academic interest, having been overtaken by statutes and later developments, but binding precedents can still be found, often most cogently expressed.
The most significant change concerning the reporting of legal cases occurred in 1865, when the nonprofit Incorporated Council of Law Reporting (ICLR) for England & Wales was founded. It has gradually become the dominant publisher of reports in the UK. It has compiled most of the best available copies of pre-1866 cases into the English Reports whilst post-1865 cases are contained in the ICLR’s own Law Reports. Even today, the UK government does not publish an official report, but its courts have promulgated rules stating that the ICLR reports should be cited whenever possible. Otherwise, any report signed by a barrister may be cited in Court.
The styles of citation have changed throughout the years as well. Since 1891 there are generally four series.
• Appeal Cases
• Chancery Division
• Queens Bench Division (1891 – 1901, 1952 onwards)/Kings Bench Division (1901 – 1952)
• Probate (Replaced in 1972 by a series called Family, due to the creation of the Family Division of the High Court)
In 1891, there was a change in the mode of citation. Volumes published from 1891 onwards are cited by the year in which they were published and numbered according to the order of publication in the year, if more than one volume has been published in that year.

Advertisements

Foreign Workers & Employee Eligibility in the United States

Foreign Workers & Employee Eligibility

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) governs immigration and citizenship in the United States.

As you prepare to hire employees, be sure that you understand all laws and regulations about employee eligibility. The INA is especially important to small business owners because it addresses employment eligibility, employment verification and non-discrimination. This guide provides an overview of these provisions and assistance on how to comply with the INA.

Employee Eligibility Verification (I-9 Form)

Federal law requires you, as an employer, to verify an employee’s eligibility to work in the United States. Within three days of hiring a new employee, you must complete an Employment Eligibility Verification Form, commonly referred to as an I-9 form. This requires examining acceptable forms of the employee’s documentation to confirm his or her citizenship or eligibility to work in the United States. You can only request documentation specified on the I-9 form. Employers who ask for other types of documentation not listed on the I-9 form may be subject to discrimination lawsuits.

You do not file the I-9 with the federal government. Rather, you are required required to keep an I-9 form on file for three (3) years after the date of hire or one (1) year after the date the employee’s employment ends, whichever is later. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency conducts routine workplace audits to ensure that employers are properly completing and retaining I-9 forms, and that employee information on I-9 forms matches government records.

Fair Employment Practices (Non-Discrimination)

The INA includes provisions that protect U.S. citizens and certain work-authorized individuals from employment discrimination based on citizenship or immigration status. The INA protects all work-authorized individuals from national origin discrimination, unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process and from retaliation.

The U.S. Department of Justice enforces the INA’s non-discrimination provisions, and provides the following guidance to help small businesses understand these provisions:

  • Business Guide to Fair EmploymentDownload Adobe Reader to read this link content
    Describes employer obligations under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, and the Immigration and Nationality Act’s anti-discrimination provision.

No-Match Letters

When you send an employee’s W-2 form to the Social Security Administration (SSA), the employee’s name and Social Security number are checked against SSA records. ICE will also verify the accuracy of information on I-9 forms. If either (or both) SSA or ICE cannot verify employ information, a no-match letter will be sent to you indicating that the employee’s name or Social Security number did not match government records.

If you get a no-match letter for an employee, avoid taking immediate action against the employee. A no-match letter simply says the employee’s information did not match government records, and is not necessarily an indication that the employee is ineligible to work in the U.S. In fact, firing an employee solely on the basis of a no-match letter may open you up to a discrimination lawsuit. At the same time, if you do not follow up on a no-match letter in a timely manner, you may be cited for knowingly employing an unauthorized worker, which is a violation of federal law.

Case Law

Collins v. Univ. of NH, No. 10-2316 (1st Cir. 2011)

Plaintiff, a tenured professor at the University-defendant, was arrested by campus police and charged with stalking and disorderly conduct after unleashing an expletive-filled tirade against a colleague whom he suspected of causing him to receive a parking ticket. Plaintiff was temporarily banned from campus, removed as department head, and required to attend an anger-management class. Although the charges were later dismissed, Collins sued for false arrest, defamation, and violation of his due process rights. The district court granted judgment for the defendants. The First Circuit affirmed, first rejecting an argument that the arrest was illegal because the “violation” was civil in nature. The warrant was supported by probable cause. Suspension with pay for two months was a minimal deprivation that did not entitle plaintiff to pre-deprivation process. Plaintiff was allowed to visit campus several times during the ban and was given adequate process for the minimal deprivation of liberty. An email indicating that plaintiff’s presence on campus should be reported was not defamatory.
Here is the full text of the decision

EU data protection regulation

What is the EU data protection regulation?

In January 2015 the European Commission revealed a draft of its European Data Protection Regulation to replace the previous Data Protection Directive.

The Data Protection Directive is a European Union Directive, created to regulate the progression of personal data within the European Union. Directive 95/46/EC is  now an integral part of the EU privacy and human rights law.

The aim of the new European Data Protection Regulation is to harmonise the current data protection laws in place across the EU member states. As a “regulation” it will be directly applicable to all EU member states without a need for national implementing legislation.

The proposal seeks to update the EU’s data protection framework to:

  • Give individuals more control over their data.
  • Harmonize rules and enforcement throughout the EU.
  • Ensure data protection in a globalized world.
  • Extend the framework to include data use by police and criminal justice operations.

The proposal consists of two legislative measures: a regulation that updates the general framework and a new directive that establishes rules for police and judicial cooperation.

The European Commission plans to reach an agreement with the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union on the new data protection framework by year’s end. The rules will go into effect two years after they have been adopted by the member countries.

International Labour Law Standards

Normlex is a new information system which brings together information on International Labour Standards (such as ratification information, reporting requirements, comments of the ILO’s supervisory bodies, etc.) as well as national labour and social security laws.

There are eight Fundamental Conventions. They cover subjects that are considered fundamental principles and rights at work: freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining; the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour; the effective abolition of child labour; and the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.
Since 1995, the ILO has made a concerted effort to achieve universal ratification of these Conventions.
Specifically, the eight Fundamental Conventions are:

  • Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87)
  • Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98)
  • Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)
  • Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105)
  • Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138)
  • Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182)
  • Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100)
  • Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111)

There are four Governance Conventions. They relate to, and are important for, the functioning of the international labour standards system and are considered as the most important instruments from the point of view of governance. As a result, the ILO encourages member States to ratify them as a matter of priority.
The four Governance Conventions are:

  • Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81)
  • Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129)
  • Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144)
  • Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122)

An instrument goes through many stages during its life.

You can search and/or sort the lists of instruments by their status within NORMLEX;

The various statuses are:

  • Final Article Convention, not examined
  • Instrument to be revised
  • Instrument with Interim Status
  • No conclusions
  • Outdated instrument
  • Request for Information
  • Shelved convention
  • Withdrawn Instrument

http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:1:0::NO:::