Quiz 35: Labor, Worker Protection, and Immigration Law
Workers Compensation: Workers Compensation is offered when a worker is injured while performing his duties on the job. In order to meet the medical costs and as a damage reconciliation, workers compensation is offered. Facts: S is working as a math instructor at a local school, he also teaches base ball and basket ball to girl players. The school encourages its employees based on the in school activities and off school activities. Smith attended a student picnic along with his family and he died in an accident during the picnic. His wife sought workers compensation from the school but the school denied. Discussion: S's activities during the time of the accident are to be considered as on the job because the school advises the instructors to engage in other duties other than teaching duties. S is attending the duty on behalf of the school because the school advises them to attend other duties. Therefore, the school has to pay workers compensation and the duty is to be considered as on the job duty.
Facts of the case: • G Oil Company designed a fluid booster to increase the pressure in the system. • Without testing the vessel, the company asked its engineer R to install it. • When the pressure increased to 930 pounds per square inch, an explosion occurred, in which R died. Issue of the case: The issue surrounding the case is that whether the Oil Company liable for damages or not. Decision: The Occupational safety and health review commission decided that the Company failed to test the fabricated vessel before installation thereby violating the Safety norms that existed in the oil and gas industry. Hence it should be penalized as per the citation. Language of the court: The Court held that the company was responsible and liable for the death of its worker and must be penalized for violating the safety measures that have to be observed in an oil and gas company. The failure to test a fabricated vessel before installation is a recognized hazard in the industry.
Yes, the defendant violated the labour law. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's statements and communications cannot be deemed as a prediction of "demonstrable economic consequences". Speeches, pamphlets, literatures, and letters delivered by the defendant conveyed the message that "The Company is in a critical financial condition. The "strike-happy" union would try to obtain its potentially irrational demands by announcing strikes. Consequently, the plant is expected to shut down as indicated by the history of labour relations in the area. The employees, therefore, would have great difficulty in finding employment somewhere else." One could reasonably conclude that the clear intent of the imported message was not that unionization would necessarily cause the plant to close. It was, instead, to threaten that employees would be thrown out of work irrespective of the economic realities. The defendant did not have any support for its basic presumption that the unionization would cause strike even when it had not presented any demands. Further, the defendant admitted that it did not have any basis for attributing other plant closings in the area to unionism.