Labor Law. Effect of Anti-Injunction Acts on Municipal Ordinances, Common-Law Actions, and Sherman Act

1940 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 388
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Labor Law ◽  
Sherman Act

Monopolizing at Common Law and under Section Two of the Sherman Act

1917 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward A. Adler
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Sherman Act

Primacy of Reality

2019 ◽  
pp. 63-92
Author(s):  
Gamonal C. Sergio ◽  
César F. Rosado Marzán
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Labor Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Employment Relationship ◽  
Independent Contractors ◽  
International Labor ◽  
Legal Texts ◽  
The Common ◽  
Employment Tests ◽  
The U.S

Chapter 3 describes the principle of primacy of reality in Latin America, namely, in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay. The principle is also contained in the International Labor Organization’s Recommendation 198. The principle posits that facts must be given preference over what parties, particularly employers, state in legal texts, documents, and agreements. It is particularly important when determining threshold questions in labor law, such as employee and employer status. While employers might deny an employment relationship given a formal agreement to hire workers as independent contractors, the facts might show otherwise. However, the chapter also argues that primacy of reality depends on the principle of protection and in dubio pro operario to resolve questions when the facts are not dispositive given vague or missing rules. The chapter then searches primacy of reality in the United States and finds it in various employment tests, such as the common law control test. It is also finds it in employer tests of joint employer status. However, many of those tests remain vague, requiring supplementation with the U.S. versions of in dubio pro operario, i.e., liberal construction of the statutes that derogate the common law, and with legislative purpose. Primacy of reality makes it even more important for legal operators to be cognizant of labor law principles and, principally, the protective principle.

Monopolization and Price Fixing—Good Cases Making Bad Law; Australian-United States Parallels and a Suggested Solution

1981 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 308-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Ransom
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Sherman Act ◽  
Restrictive Trade

The Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906 (Cth) was modelled closely on the United States Sherman Act. Early United States criminal monopolization cases were not very successful, and the statutory language was read down by a judiciary oriented toward common law contract analysis. The same thing is happening in current Australian cases. One of the finest monopolization opinions ever written is that of Mr Justice Isaacs in the 1911 Coal Vend case. It should be resurrected and used as the foundation for the development of Australian restrictive trade practices law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document