The contract of employment provides in many jurisdictions the legal foundation for the employment of workers. This book examines how the development of the common law under the influence of contemporary social and economic pressures has caused this contract to evolve.

This paper is derived from our book The Common Law Employment Relationship: A Comparative Study recently published by Edward Elgar. This paper considers three key observations drawn from the book. First, the common law has developed differently in each jurisdiction, under the influence of the particular social and political circumstances in those jurisdictions. Second, the changing modes in which enterprises seek to engage subservient labour have placed the common law concept of employment under considerable pressure, and have (consequently) generated some evolution in the common law approach to defining employment. These developments also evidence jurisdictional variation. Finally, the impact of new technology has tested the common law's capacity to accommodate changing expectations in employment relationships. Here we find fewer jurisdictional differences, and a greater tendency towards conservatism.

The compensation or remedies after the breach of contract has been important agenda in the legal studies. That’s the reason, compensation after breach of contract become now center of debate in several legal research studies. The numerous laws and acts had constitute and legal experts continuously search to protect basic right in the contract law and urging to provide the basic standard safeguard in contract law for both parties (Employee or employer) involved. This study aims to provide fresh insight of Contract law, breach of contract and compensation with background of Common Law Employment Act. The breach of contract is the common term used in the business world and several cases has registered on daily basis in the different courts of Common Law. In the examination, this study aims to access documentary analysis of the breach of contract cases and their compensation, which has been awarded by the courts complainant. The 10 decided cases of courts (industrial, session and high court) has been chosen randomly from 2010 to 2015. In the conclusion, the study found mix results i.e some of the cases, court declares that appealed has approved and awarded but the compensation they claimed is over estimation. In the some cases, court has given the award in the favor of employee and some cases observed in favor of employer. Descriptor(s): CONTRACTS | INFRINGEMENT | LABOUR CONTRACTS | LABOUR LAW | SEVERANCE PAY | LEGAL RESEARCH | EMPLOYEES | LAWS AND REGULATIONS

This edited collection is the culmination of a comparative project on 'Voices at Work' funded by the Leverhulme Trust 2010 - 2013. The book aims to shed light on the problematic concept of worker 'voice' by tracking its evolution and its complex interactions with various forms of law. Contributors to the volume identify the scope for continuity of legal approaches to voice and the potential for change in a sample of industrialised English speaking common law countries, namely Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK, and USA. These countries, facing broadly similar regulatory dilemmas, have often sought to borrow and adapt certain legal mechanisms from one another. The variance in the outcomes of any attempts at 'borrowing' seems to demonstrate that, despite apparent membership of a 'common law' family, there are significant differences between industrial systems and constitutional traditions, thereby casting doubt on the notion that there are definitive legal solutions which can be applied through transplantation. Instead, it seems worth studying the diverse possibilities for worker voice offered in divergent contexts, not only through traditional forms of labour law, but also such disciplines as competition law, human rights law, international law and public law. In this way, the comparative study highlights a rich multiplicity of institutions and locations of worker voice, configured in a variety of ways across the English-speaking common law world. This book comprises contributions from many leading scholars of labour law, politics and industrial relations drawn from across the jurisdictions, and is therefore an exceedingly comprehensive comparative study. It is addressed to academics, policymakers, legal practitioners, legislative drafters, trade unions and interest groups alike. Additionally, while offering a critique of existing laws, this book proposes alternative legal tools to promote engagement with a multitude of 'voices' at work and therefore foster the effective deployment of law in industrial relations.

The article departs from the theme in this issue of the ICCLL&IR that there has been a 'withdrawal' of the common law courts from areas of labour law regulated by statute, using the rationale that they should not intervene in such areas even if there is no explicit statutory exclusion relating to the point at issue. The article considers the role played by the New Zealand Court of Appeal following the neoliberal reforms to labour law by the Employment Contracts Act 1991. It argues that the Court, rather than 'withdrawing', actively intervened in the development of the law to reinforce the neoliberal reforms and to ensure that the bipartite values that had characterized labour law for most of the twentieth century were displaced by the unitary values of the common law. While approaching the topic from a different perspective, the conclusion is much the same: the courts consistently decline to extend the common law in ways which would have enhanced employee rights against employers, an inhibition noticeably absent when extending the range and scope of duties owed by employees to their employers. This article argues that if employment relationships are to balance adequately the relationship between capital and labour, the autonomy of labour law must be increased through a greater codification, the reinforcement of specialist courts and the minimization of the intrusion of the common law courts into their jurisdiction.