The Cour de Cassation has on the one hand rejected deriving the employer’s prerogative from some kind of quasi-public structures or diffuse communities.With reference to the Code civil and general contractual principles, the court has on the other hand concluded that the contract of employment by its nature constitutes the legal foundation of a subordination juridique, which means that the worker is subject to an open-ended and far-reaching duty of obedience.287 The judges’ and professors’ elaboration of the concepts concerning employer and employee facilitated the drawing-up of boundaries which were relevant for the legislation on industrial safety. From1982, the French legislature, however, has limited and at the same time recognised the employer’s “natural” prerogatives.288 The Statute of Labourers from1349 and 1351 as well as the Elizabethan Statute of Artificers of 1563 and the Poor Law of 1601 laid down that “the servant” had an obligation to work in return for a remuneration.289 Criminal and administrative law penalties were imposed on servants who did not obey orders or abandoned their masters. A person who lacked means could be sentenced to forced labour or jail. The pre-industrial ideas about the “Master and Servant Relationship” were kept alive well into the 19th century.The Elizabethan statutes fell into disuse, but their tradition was maintained by the Master and Servant Act of 1823, which prescribed that a worker who left his or her master before the end of the time stipulated could be sentenced to three months in jail. Justices of p a r t i v, c h a p t e r 6 144 287 Ray 1995, pp. 70, 357; Mialon 1996, pp. 67, 85-89, 207; Hintermeier 1984, pp. 12-13; Savatier 1993; Despax & Rojot 1987, p. 138; Couturier 1990. 288 Maggi-Germain 1998, pp. 4-8, 14. 289 This historical background is described by several authors:Wedderburn 1965/1966, Ch.V; Freedland 1976, pp. 197-200; Hepple & Fredman 1992, art. 50-52; Rideout 1980, pp. 647-664; Rideout & Dyson 1983, §§ 93-96; Veneziani 1986, pp. 54-72; Titman & Camp 1989, pp. 23, 60-163; Bowers & Honeyball 1993, pp. 1-3; Supiot 1994, pp. 13-32. 6. 2 g reat bri tain
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=