Devonald v Rosser & Sons
| Devonald v Rosser & Sons |
|
| Court |
Court of Appeal |
| Citation(s) |
[1906] 2 KB 728 |
| Case opinions |
| Lord Alverston CJ |
| Keywords |
| Employment contract |
Devonald v Rosser & Sons [1906] 2 KB 728 is a UK labour law case concerning the contract of employment. It held that an implied term of employment contracts is that when there is no work available to be done, the employer must bear the risk by continuing to pay wages.
Facts
In a test case, Mr Devonald was a tinplate rollerman at Rosser & Sons’ factory in Cilfrew, South Wales. He was paid for each completed box of 112 tin plates. His contract said he was required to do the tasks set by the employer and that he would get 28 days notice before termination. Unfortunately, tinplates were in decline and the employer announced the plant would close in two weeks. There was a six week period, therefore, when the employer gave no work. The question was whether the employer had to pay, given that payment was really according to piece.
Judgment
Lord Alverston CJ (deciding a few months just after the 1906 general election) held that the contract was in fact a time service contract and that the employee did not bear the risk of plant closure.
| “ |
No distinction in principle can be drawn between wages by time and wages by piece. Piece work is only a method of ascertaining the amount of the wages which is to be paid to the workman… On the one hand we must consider the matter from the point of view of the employers who I agree will under ordinary circumstance desire to carry their works at a profit… On the other hand, we have to consider the position of the workman. The workman has to live. |
” |
Lord Alverston CJ went on to say that if there was a notice period, the worker could be bound to the employer for the time and unable to go and earn any wages at all.
| “ |
I agree with Jelf J that that is an unreasonable contention from the workman’s point of view. In my opinion the necessary implication to be drawn from this contract is at least that the master will find a reasonable amount of work up to the expiration of a notice given in accordance with the contract.
…it seems that there is nothing unreasonable in the implication that the master shall look at least twenty-eight days ahead, or, to take the extreme case, as the notice has to be given on the first Monday in the month, fifty-seven days ahead, so as to place himself in a position to provide the workman with work during the period covered by the notice.
|
” |
See also
|
Employment contract cases
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Devonald v Rosser & Sons [1906] 2 KB 728
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes
References