New Possibilities with ExamTime's Flashcard Maker_2

Question	Answer
McHenry Brothers v Carey	Non-employment means more than dismissal so could potentially include a refusal to employ someone
Bradbury Limited v Duffy and Whelan	There has to be a limit to the meaning of non-employment so there must be a previous history to bring it within the scope of the Act.
Lambe Brothers v Davidson	If they are an independent contractor the employer is not counted as an employer for the purpose of the Act.
CIE v Darby	COuldn't be said with certainty that this was a trade dispute so the immunities didn't apply.
JT Stratford v Lindley	There had been no recent demand or refusal and therefore no dispute at the time.
Esplanade Pharmacy v Larkin	Was no real dispute at present and therefore the immunities didn't apply.
Nolan Transport v Halligan	The only issue was whether the Union reasonably believed the dismissal had occurred. It represented an immediate quarrel between the parties.
Justice Walsh in EI Company v Kennedy	Excessive numbers in a picket might go beyond what is reasonably permissible. This could amount to a nuisance or an obstruction.
Raywave v TGWU	This was the nearest practicable point for the picket. They had no right to come into private property.
Nolan Transport v Halligan on Secret Ballot	This was a matter fro internal management of the trade union and the issue should only be raised at union level.

Resource summary

	Created by maya velasquez almost 9 years ago

	Copied by Andrea Leyden almost 9 years ago

	Copied by skirdaghgirl almost 9 years ago