LABOUR LAW COURSE WORK

GROUP ONE MEMBERS

COURSE UNIT: LABOUR LAW

LECTURE: ISABIRYE DERICK

NAMES REGISTRATION NUMBERS

KIBALAMA KELLY U/2020/LLB/024/E

KAWALYA EMMA U/2020/LLB/008/E

MPOYENDA JANNET U/2020/LLB/046/E

NDUHURA ABDUL U/2020/LLB/O27/E

MUGISHA ROBERT U/2020/LLB/033/E

NYESIGIRE BRIDGET RITAH U/2020/LLB/056/D

NASSOLO BRIDGET U/2020/LLB/060/E

MWEBESA JUNIOUR U/2020/LLB/175/D

NAKALEMA AISHA MALAIKA U/2020/LLB/020/E

SOKIRI MOSES U/2020/LLB/021/E

KINAMANI GILBERT U/2020/LLB/128/D

SSENGONGE MARK U/2020/LLB/022/D

LUTAYA JAMES U/2020/LLB/101/E

With the aid of relevant authorities discuss the rights and obligations of the employer and
employee in the contract of service
A contract is an agreement made with the free consent of parties with capacity to
contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, with the intention to be
legally bound.. Section 10(1) of the Contract Act Cap 7
A contract of service under section 2 of the employment act is defined as “ any contract,
whether oral or in writing, whether express or implied, where a person agrees in return
for remuneration, to work for an employer and includes a contract of apprenticeship.

The term employer is also defined within the same section to mean “ any person or group
of persons, including a company or corporation, a public, regional or local authority, a
governing body of an unincorporated association, a partnership, parastatal organization or
other institution or organization whatsoever , for whom an employee works or has
worked, or normally worked or sought to work, under a contract of service and includes
the heirs, successors, assignees and transferors of any person or group of persons for
whom an employee works, has worked, or normally works”.

On the other hand, an employee is defined as “any person who has entered into a contract
of service or an apprenticeship contract, including without limitation, any person who is
employed by or for the government of Uganda, including the Uganda Public service, a
local authority or a parastatal organization but excludes a member of the Uganda
People’s Defense forces.

The obligations and rights of an employer and an employee as discussed below; include
but not limited to;

OBLIGATIONS

Duty to pay wages

There is an implied duty of an employer to pay wages to the employee during the period
of employment.

According to section 43 of the employment act “the payment of wages in legal tender
shall take place at the place of the employee’s work or , if he or she works at more than
one location, the premises of his or her employer from which he or she works or from
which his or her work is administered.
On a greater perspective it was held in the case of Devonald v Rosser and sons
(1906)2KB 728 that an employer was bound by an implied duty even though there is no
work available to be done he or she bares the risk of continuing to pay wages.

An employer has a duty to create a safer working environment for the employees,
this was best emphasized in the case of Wilson’s and Clyde co ltd v English [1938]
where court held that it is the duty of an employer to ensure a safe system of work and
this duty couldn’t be fully delegated to another employee. Thus the employer always
remains responsible for a safe work space for their employees and are vicariously liable
for any negligence of another. This duty includes three aspects, providing proper
materials, employing competent workers and providing valuable supervision.

An employer has the duty to provide work to the employee. Under section 40 of the
employment act ‘Every employer shall provide his or her employee with work in
accordance with the contract of service during the period for which the contract is
binding and on the number of days equal to the number of working days expressly or
impliedly provided for in a contract’. In the case of Devonald v Rosser (1906)2 KB 728
court held that the necessary implication to be drawn from a contract of service is at least
the master will find a reasonable amount of work up to the expiration of a notice given in
accordance with the contract.

In the case of Langston v Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers and another

[1947] 1ALLER 980, Lord Denning observed that, …we have repeatedly stated in this
court that a man has a right to work, which court will protect. Further that,… further
that, in these days, when an employer when employing a skilled man, he is bound to
provide him with work

It is the duty of the employer to exercise utmost good faith in the relationship.
This was held in the case of Secretary of state for Employment v Associated Society of
locomotive Engineers and Firemen for which court held that ‘ there is an implied term
of good faith in an employment contract, and if the employer withdraws from this then it
is a breach of contract.

The duty to exercise care and provide safe system of working

In this case, the employer shall ensure that the employee is not injured while performing
his or her duties

This position was regurgitated in the case of Johnston v Bloomsbury Health Authority
[1991]2ALLER 293.
Where it was held that, .. although the defendant had was entitled under the contract of
employment by which junior doctors were required to work overtime at its discretion, it
had to exercise that power in such a way not to injure the plaintiff and accordingly it
could not require him to work overtime which would put his health in danger.

Employees obligations

Indemnity
An employee is under obligation to exercise reasonable care, and failure to do that, if the
employee incurs any losses, the employee shall indemnify him or her.
In Lister v Ramford Ice cold storage co ltd [1956] UK HL 6. In this case, a van driver
negligently injured a fellow worker and the employer was held vicariously liable.
However, the van driver had to indemnify for the loss caused during a contract of service.

Duty of care and competence

An employee must be reasonably competent to perform the job for which he or was hired.
Failure to do so will warrant a dismissal
In the case of Harmer v Cornelius (1958), it was held to be reasonable that an employer
should not be compelled to go on employing a man who, having presented himself
competent, turns out to be incompetent.
The duty not to misconduct him or herself
Section 69(3) empowers an employer to dismiss an employee who has fundamentally
breached his employment obligations. And what amounts to fundamental misconduct can
be seen under the disciplinary code.
In the case of Pepper v Webb [1974]1CR, a gardener showed disinterest in the garden,
refused to perform certain tasks in the garden. His summary dismissal was held to be
justifiable

RIGHTS OF EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES

Rights Of Employees

The right to a weekly rest.

Under section 51 of the employment act, an employee shall not be required to work for
an employer for more than six consecutive days without a day’s rest, which shall be taken
on any day which is customary or as shall be agreed between the parties.
This position was reiterated in Mugisha Abraham and 4 ors v G4S Security Services (U)
ltd HCB No 113 of 2008 and 269 of 2007 where it was held that, … the plaintiffs were
entitled to payment for their unpaid weekly day rest.

The right to be repatriated

An employee who has been employed more than 100 kms shall be entitled to repatriation
by the employer whether terminated or otherwise
This was further regurgitated in Local Government Association v Kibira and 4 Ors
[2018]UGIC 23, where the court upheld the decision of the labour officer, awarding
repatriation costs to the 4th respondent who had served for 10yrs.

A right to annual leave and public holidays.

Under section 54, an employee is entitled to 21 days leave with full pay in very calendar
year.
In the case of Mugisha Abraham and 4 Ors v G4S Security Services (U) ltd HCD no
113 of 2008 and 269 of 2007.

A right to sick pay.

Under section 55, an employee who is incapable of doing his work due to sickness,
having worked for not less than one month, shall be entitled to full payment while absent
for one month.
This was restated in the case of Mugisha Abraham and 4 Ors v G4S Security Services
(U) ltd HCD no 113 of 2008 and no. 269 of 2007

Employer’s Right in a contract of service

An employer has a right to dismiss summarily any employee who has fundamentally
breached his or her employment obligations as provided under section 69(3) of the EA.
This position was held in the case of Pepper v Webb [1974]1 CR 428 where a gardener
who had refused to perform certain tasks in the garden was summarily dismissed

The right to terminate the sick employee’s contract at the expiry of the second month of
inability, while complying with the terms of the contract. Section 55(1)(b)

The right to control how their employees in the performance of the work.
Though not provided for anywhere under the Act, case law has established that an
employers are vicariously liable for the misdeeds and omissions of their servants.
In the case of Yewen v Noake (1880)6 QBD 530. It concerned a statutory exemption for
duty on inhabited houses where premises were occupied by abservant or other person for
the protection.
The court of Appeal held a clerk who earned £150 a year not fall within the definition of
a servant.
Bromwell LJ held that,…a servant is a person subject to the command of his master as
to the manner in which he shall do the work.

In conclusion, basing on the above submission, the obligations of the employer to the
employee accrue rights to the employee and the obligations of the employee give rights to
the employer which in the end, results into accomplishment of the terms as agreed in the
contract of service.