c o n t i n u i t y a n d c o n t r ac t 147 supports such an implication.All three variants mentioned pretend to start from the intention of the parties concerned. The method on “implied terms of law”, again, is founded on a reasoning about the “nature of things” and that certain, pre-contractual terms are included in every contract of employment, regardless of what the parties have or may be considered to have agreed.Within this category common law has imposed several duties upon the parties, in particular the employee’s duty of obedience, of loyalty or fidelity and to take reasonable care. There is a close connection between the employee’s duties and the law on protection of employment. If a worker does not obey orders, the employer can dismiss him or her.295 Well into the 1960s, English textbooks used to collect under rubrics such as “The Rights and Duties of Master and Servant” those terms that according to common law were such essential components of the labour relationship that they had to be included in every contract of employment.296 In the lawmaking outlined above, the judges have been strongly inclined to consider established customs and practices. Collective agreements, if at hand, have supplied models for the finding of implied terms. In the absence of collective agreements, the employer de facto has had a powerful position for the creation of hidden terms.The worker’s duties have been articulated in the light of previous decisions, which in turn have been influenced by the archaic norms of common law’s “master and servant”.297 The case law indicates that the employee’s far-reaching duty to promote the employer’s enterprise is founded on the nature of things, such as it is expressed in established customs. 295 This aspect of American (the US) labour law is discussed by Clyde W Summers, “Employment AtWill in the United States:The Divine Right of Employers”, Summers 2000, pp. 65-86. 296 Rideout 1980, p. 648, fn 4. 297 Kahn-Freund 1977, pp. 508-524.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=