Standard: £9 + VAT
An IStructE account gives you access to a world of knowledge. Create a profile to receive details of our unique range of resources, events and training.
Added to basket
An earlier article explored the rights and corresponding duties that arise between the parties by virtue of their contract of employment. In particular, from both the employee’s and the employer’s points of view, the question of unfair dismissal was considered. This continuation paper considers what constitutes the termination of a contract of employment, what claims arise, and what remedies are available. For breach of contract (known as ‘wrongfkl dismissal’) damages are recoverable at common law, and their calculation is examined. For the employee who is eligible, under statutory provisions, to make a claim for unfair dismissal before an Industrial Tribunal, the remedies of reinstatement, reengagement or monetary compensation are available. This paper considers what these are and suggests why the remedy of damages might be more appropriate in certain cases. It also looks at factors that both the court and the tribunal consider relevant when assessing the quantum, the way in which the award is calculated, and the tax implications that arise when a terminal payment is given in addition to the employee’s salary. Margaret Rutherford
This paper discusses commonly used mechanical fixings for structural timber joints and outlines some aspects of the interaction of the mechanical fastener with the timber. It gives information on basic formulae (SI units) in the current structural timber Code (CP 112: Part 2) and those proposed for its successor, now in final draft form (BS 5268: Part 2). Reference is also made to the new information on joints in the draft CIB structural timber Code. K.Thomas
Padstones in blockwork In September 1981, Mr M. K. Hurst took up Mr B. A. Haseltine ’S statenlent that, on testing, a slender block will appear weaker than a stubbier block, but that in an actual wall it has the strength of the stubbier block. If this were so, Mr Hurst continued, surely there would be no need for Table 5 of CP 111 and the basic stresses of Table 3(b) could all be increased, with consequent savings in rnaterials? Now, Mr John Tanner writes: I note from letters in the September issue that, not withstanding Mr Thorley’s remark, designers, including Mr Hurst, do not understand the basis for the CP 111 ‘modification factor for shape of unit’. Mr Haseltine stated it correctly, of course, but not as clearly as necessary, as Mr Hurst’s comment shows. Table 3 stresses relate to crushing strengths proved by crushing samples similar in format to a brick. When the sample is of a more slender format, its equivalent strength is underestimated by the crushing test on the non-standard format and Table 5 should be thought of as a ‘correction factor’ to obtain the inherent standard format strength. It follows that, when the blocks are cut or laid on their side, the correction factor is just as applicable as when laid in the normal manner (hollow blocks on their side excluded, of course) since the inherent block strength is essentially unaffected by the attitude of the block. The choice of terms in the Code has made this issue as obscure as possible and I hope the above will englighten at least a few. Verulam