Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: employers liability act 1938 Page 4 of about 63,085 results (0.148 seconds)

Steiner Vs. Mitchell

Court : US Supreme Court

..... " "(a) except as provided in subsection (b), no employer shall be subject to any liability or punishment under the fair labor standards act of 1938, as amended, the walsh-healey act, or the bacon-davis act, on account of the failure of such employer to pay an employee minimum wages, or to pay an employee overtime compensation, for or on account of any of the following activities of such employee engaged in on or after the date of the enactment of this act -- " "(1) walking, riding, or traveling to and from the actual place of performance of the principal activity or activities which such ..... " "(a) no employer shall be subject to any liability or punishment under the fair labor standards act of 1938, as amended, the walsh-healey act, or the bacon-davis act (in any action or proceeding commenced prior to or on or after the date of the enactment of this act [may 14, 1947]), on account of the failure of such employer to pay an employee minimum wages, or to pay an employee overtime compensation, for or on account of any activity of an employee engaged in prior to the date of the enactment of this act, except an activity which was compensable by either -- " "(1) an express provision .....

Smt. Gopibai Ghanshamda Advani and Others Vs. Food Corporation of Indi ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : [1986]59CompCas660(Bom)

..... (ii) except where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment , to cover liability in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, persons being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting form the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out ..... section 94 makes it mandatory to have such insurance while section 95 provides as to what risk the insurance policy should cover and what would be the limit of the liability of the insurance company, section 95(1)(a) and (b) states that there must be an insurance policy which insures certain persons and clauses of persons and the limit of that insurance is as ..... vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment , -(i) in respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward, a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all ;(ii) ..... necessary to consider the provision of section 95 of the motor vehicles act, 1939, for the purpose of deciding as to whether the insurance ..... follows :' as to the point whether the vehicles in which passengers are carried in pursuance of or by reason of a contract of employment are confined to those used habitually for such purposes, it is noticeable that both in izzard's case [1937] 3 all er 79 ; [1937] ac 773 ; [1938] 8 comp cas (ins. ..... [1937] ac 773 ; [1938] 8 comp cas (ins ..... ; [1937] ac 773 ; [1938] 8 comp cas (ins.) 91 .....

Unexcelled Chemical Corp. Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

..... finds that the fair labor standards act of 1938, as amended, has been interpreted judicially in disregard of long established customs, practices, and contracts between employers and employees, thereby creating wholly unexpected liabilities, immense in amount and retroactive in operation, upon employers, with the results that, if said act as so interpreted or claims arising under such interpretations were permitted to stand, (1) the payment of such liabilities would bring about financial ruin of many employers and seriously impair the capital resources ..... that is doubtless why 1(a) of the portal-to-portal act, after summarizing the great burden on employers of the pending employee claims, states that "all of the results which have arisen or may arise under the fair labor standards act of 1938 . . . ..... of many others, thereby resulting in the reduction of industrial operations, halting of expansion and development, curtailing employment, and the caring .....

Gange Lumber Co. Vs. Rowley

Court : US Supreme Court

..... characterized the system as neither an employers' liability act nor an ordinary workmen's compensation act, but rather as an industrial insurance statute having all the features of an insurance act. ..... cause for complaint, if the right were coupled with a more substantial and less contingent injury than is shown to exist in this case and with a previous total extinction of the employer's liability need not be determined. mr. ..... the charge will be made, the allowance of an award is said to be a matter vitally affecting the employer's substantive liability, and constitutes a final adjudication of that liability to the extent that the charge may affect the future rate. ..... individual experience, rather than at an arbitrary figure, [ footnote 11 ] and surrounded with adequate procedural safeguards against arbitrary action, would not seem to be so obviously harsh or arbitrary in its effect upon employers generally that it could be said without question to be beyond the scope of the state's regulatory power or in violation of the due process prohibition of the federal constitution. ..... of premium, the director is required to take into account not only the cost experience of each class over a previous two-year period, but also the average cost experience of each employer over the immediately preceding five-year period, in addition to "the then condition of each class and/or sub-class account. ..... a prior award for the original injury, made in 1938, became "final" [ footnote 2 ] without appeal, and ..... 1938 .....

S. A. Schulte, Inc. Vs. Gangi

Court : US Supreme Court

..... points out that a seaman may release his claims under statutes enacted for his protection in a bona fide settlement, [ footnote 6 ] and that settlement of accrued claims is permitted under the federal employers' liability act. ..... even though stipulated judgments may be obtained, where settlements are proposed in controversies between employers and employees over violations of the act, by the simple device of filing suits and entering agreed judgments, we think the requirement of pleading the issues and submitting the judgment to judicial scrutiny may differentiate stipulated judgments from compromises by the ..... an employer cannot be relieved from liability for liquidated damages under 16(b) of the fair labor standards act by a compromise or settlement of a bona fide dispute as to the coverage of the act. ..... without detailing the factual situation which makes the position of these four tenants decisive of liability, we assume petitioner's conclusion that its liability depends upon the proper characterization of the four tenants in respect to their position as producers for ..... footnote 4 ] respondents were employed by petitioner as building service and maintenance employees in its twenty-three story loft building in the garment manufacturing district of new york city during the period october 24, 1938, to february 5, 1942. ..... issues brought to this court by this proceeding arise from a controversy concerning overtime pay and liquidated damages under the fair labor standards act of 1938. .....

The Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Parel, Bombay and anr. Vs. the Apoll ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1960SC819; (1960)IILLJ263SC; [1960]3SCR231

..... 26 of that act, he had no jurisdiction to determine the liability of the employers on grounds outside ..... further that in the bombay industrial disputes act, 1938, there was no item similar to the ..... was wholly immaterial whether profits were made or losses were incurred in the year, if the employers continued to retain the labour force so as to be available for the days on which the ..... off and rights and liabilities of employers and employees......'. 17. ..... 49a of the bombay industrial disputes act, 1938, was referred had jurisdiction to decide the disputes within the terms of the ..... bombay industrial disputes act, 1938; but the provisions ..... in that act means inter alia any dispute or difference between an employer and employee or between employers and employees, which is connected with an industrial matter, which includes all matters pertaining to non-employment of any ..... it has been pointed out already that the failure to continue to employ labour was due to the short supply of electrical energy, and the question is whether in these admitted circumstances, standing orders ..... item 7 in the bombay industrial relations act, which provisions did not find place in the bombay industrial disputes act, 1938, under which the decision of the bombay ..... it was there laid down that inasmuch as the labour employed in an industrial undertaking is ever changing, the award of bonus can only be from the profits to which labour in any particular year contributed and labour cannot claim that profits and reserves .....

Guruswami Mudaliar (K.) Vs. Executive Engineer, Mettur Canals Division

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1956)IILLJ44Mad

..... idea underlying this is that if it is ordinarily part of the business of a person to execute certain work, then he will ordinarily do that work by his own servants; he is not to escape liability for any accident that takes place merely by interposing a contractor--the contractor undertaking to do what ordinarily the principal would do for himself [rabia v. g.i.p. ..... is generally construed as meaning an occurrence which is neither expected, designed, nor intentionally caused by the workman, and so, as to injuries unintentionally resulting from the acts of latter, is employed in contradistinction to the expression 'wilful misconduct' which is found ordinarily in the same section or paragraph of the statute. ..... notion is that if it is an ordinary part of the business of a person to execute certain work, then ordinarily he would do that work by his own servants; he is not to escape liability for any accident that takes place merely by interposing a con-tractor, the contractor undertaking to do what the principal ordinarily would do for himself. ..... the existence of both a head contract and sub-contract is not necessary; the section extends to the case of a man who for the purpose of his trade or business undertakes work on his own account and employs a contractor to do the whole or part of the work, provided that the work is such as the person employing the contractor usually undertakes for another in the ordinary course of his trade or business, hut not otherwise [skates v. ..... 1938 nag. ..... 1938 .....

Barrentine Vs. Arkansas-best Freight Sys.

Court : US Supreme Court

..... 254, which provides: "(a) except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, no employer shall be subject to any liability or punishment under the fair labor standards act of 1938, as amended, . . . ..... provisions of subsection (a) of this section which relieve an employer from liability and punishment with respect to an activity, the employer shall not be so relieved if such activity is compensable by either -- " "(1) an express provision of a written or nonwritten contract in effect, at the time of such activity, between such employee, his agent, or collective bargaining representative and his employer; or" "(2) a custom or practice in effect, at the time of such activity, at the establishment or other place where such employee is employed, covering such activity, not inconsistent with ..... 747 routine wage claims outside the costly, cumbersome judicial process of the federal courts and, specifically, that employees, acting through their union in an arm's-length negotiation with the employer, may not bind themselves -- as the petitioners did here -- to submit to final and binding arbitration "any controversy that might arise," app. ..... 739 the principal congressional purpose in enacting the fair labor standards act of 1938 was to protect all covered workers from substandard wages and oppressive working hours, "labor conditions [that are] detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general wellbeing of .....

Sundaresa Mudaliar Vs. Muthammal

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1956)IILLJ52Mad

..... , deliberate and intended as opposed to a thoughtless act on the spur of the moment by the workman of an order expressly given saving the employer from liability under section 3(1) and which requires the concurrence of seven conditions laid down ..... is injured while doing work which, although not strictly the work required of him by the terms of his contract, is yet such as a reasonable employer had he been present would reasonably be expected to acquiesce in the workman performing in the special circumstances (although strictly not an emergency) and if such work is for the employer's benefit, and such as the workman is competent to perform, then the workman in such a case is not outside the scope or sphere of his ..... words, was it part of the injured person's employment to hazard, to suffer or to do that which caused part of his injury--another way of asking whether it was part of his employment that the workman should have acted as he was acting or should have been in the position in which he was whereby in the course of his employment he sustained that injury [lancashire and yorkshire & ..... to the work which it is the duty of the workman to perform, giving (the statute being remedial) a wide and liberal interpretation to the word 'duty' and whilst the workman is engaged about that employment and not acting outside the scope of the employment, and the accident must have arisen when the relationship of employer and workman can reasonably be held to have been subsisting. ..... 1938 ..... 1938 .....

Concrete Pipe and Products of Cal., Inc. Vs. Construction Laborers Pen ...

Court : US Supreme Court

..... when the withdrawing employer's liability to the plan is based on the proportion of the plan's contributions (and coincident service credits) provided by the employer during the employer's participation in the plan, the imposition of withdrawal liability is clearly rational. ..... , at 247, and we concluded that this latter proceeding was the 11 while the employer "may ask the plan sponsor to review any specific matter relating to the determination of the employer's liability and the schedule of payments," 29 u. s. c. ..... the parties recognize and agree that the pension trust and plan was created, negotiated, and is intended to continue to be if permitted by law under erisa, a defined contribution plan and trust and that the individual contractors' liability with regard to the pension has been and remains limited exclusively to payment of the contributions specified from time to time in collective bargaining agreements.''' id., at 82, , 34. 24 appendix k to the southern california master labor agreements in 1977-1980 ..... argued december 1, 1992-decided june 14, 1993 the multiemployer pension plan amendments act of 1980 (mppaa) amended the employee retirement income security act of 1974 (erisa) to provide that in certain circumstances an employer withdrawing from a multiemployer plan incurs as "withdrawal liability" a share of the plan's unfunded vested benefits, 29 u. s. c. ..... 134 (1938); funkhouser v. .....