Internet Business Forums - View Single Post

icde · 23-01-2004, 10:54 PM

Just a reminder that the national minimum wage rate goes up from 1st October 2003. The adult rate increases from £4.20 to £4.50 (£5.15 for adult agricultural workers) and to £3.60 for 18 to 21 year olds. Employers need to think carefully about this if (for example) you employ commission-only sales people. If they have a bad month you will probably still have to pay them the NMW.

When Is The Employer Liable For the Acts Of The Employee?

Employers are liable for the acts of their employees done 'in the ordinary course of employment'.

In the Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam 2003 the House of Lords held that liability depends on whether the employee is authorised to do acts of the kind in question. It is not dependent upon the employee's authority to do the particular act which turns out to be wrong.

Deliberate and dishonest conduct committed by an employee for his sole benefit can make the employer liable. It all depends apparently 'on the closeness of the connection between the duties which, in broad terms, the employee was engaged to perform and his wrongdoing.' Plenty of room for dispute there then.

Applying these principles; a nightclub owner was liable when the doorman he employed went home, got himself a knife, then attacked a customer outside the club. The doorman was employed to keep order and had been encouraged to perform his duties in an aggressive and intimidatory manner (Mattis v Pollock CA 2003).

23-01-2004, 10:54 PM	#1 (permalink)
icde Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 6	National Minimum Wage Just a reminder that the national minimum wage rate goes up from 1st October 2003. The adult rate increases from £4.20 to £4.50 (£5.15 for adult agricultural workers) and to £3.60 for 18 to 21 year olds. Employers need to think carefully about this if (for example) you employ commission-only sales people. If they have a bad month you will probably still have to pay them the NMW. When Is The Employer Liable For the Acts Of The Employee? Employers are liable for the acts of their employees done 'in the ordinary course of employment'. In the Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam 2003 the House of Lords held that liability depends on whether the employee is authorised to do acts of the kind in question. It is not dependent upon the employee's authority to do the particular act which turns out to be wrong. Deliberate and dishonest conduct committed by an employee for his sole benefit can make the employer liable. It all depends apparently 'on the closeness of the connection between the duties which, in broad terms, the employee was engaged to perform and his wrongdoing.' Plenty of room for dispute there then. Applying these principles; a nightclub owner was liable when the doorman he employed went home, got himself a knife, then attacked a customer outside the club. The doorman was employed to keep order and had been encouraged to perform his duties in an aggressive and intimidatory manner (Mattis v Pollock CA 2003).