Tag: 上海2021营业会所

Rugby player banned for four years for anti-doping rule violation

first_imgWednesday Jun 10, 2020 Rugby player banned for four years for anti-doping rule violation A Haywards Heath RFC rugby player has been banned from all sport for four years following an anti-doping violation, the RFU announced today. His ban will serve the period of 10 January 2020 until 9 January 2024.ADVERTISEMENTMax Drage of Haywards Heath RFC provided a urine sample In-Competition at Haywards Heath RFC’s ground on 16 November 2019.The sample returned an Adverse Analytical Finding for S4 Hormone and Metabolic Modulators and S1 Anabolic Androgenic Steroids.These are Prohibited Substances as defined by the World Anti-Doping Agency Prohibited List 2019.Mr Drage was charged with a breach of World Rugby regulation 21.2.1, “Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in a player’s Sample.”“All rugby players are subject to the anti-doping rules which are in place to protect players and the integrity of our sport,” said RFU Anti-Doping and Illicit Drugs Programme Manager, Stephen Watkins.You can read the full judgement document hereADVERTISEMENTRelated viewing: Posted By: rugbydump Share Send Thanks Sorry there has been an error News Related Articles 25 WEEKS AGO Exeter vs Toulouse is off as a number of… 25 WEEKS AGO Danny Cipriani leaves Gloucester with immediate… 25 WEEKS AGO ‘Aphiwe can’t believe it. We were starting… From the WebThis Video Will Soon Be Banned. Watch Before It’s DeletedSecrets RevealedYou Won’t Believe What the World’s Most Beautiful Girl Looks Like TodayNueeyUrologists Stunned: Forget the Blue Pill, This “Fixes” Your EDSmart Life ReportsWrinkle Remedy Stuns TV Judges: Forget Surgery, Do This Once DailySmart Life ReportsIf You Have Ringing Ears Do This Immediately (Ends Tinnitus)Healthier Living30+ Everyday Items with a Secret Hidden PurposeNueeyThe content you see here is paid for by the advertiser or content provider whose link you click on, and is recommended to you by Revcontent. As the leading platform for native advertising and content recommendation, Revcontent uses interest based targeting to select content that we think will be of particular interest to you. We encourage you to view your opt out options in Revcontent’s Privacy PolicyWant your content to appear on sites like this?Increase Your Engagement Now!Want to report this publisher’s content as misinformation?Submit a ReportGot it, thanks!Remove Content Link?Please choose a reason below:Fake NewsMisleadingNot InterestedOffensiveRepetitiveSubmitCancellast_img read more

RSF’s #WeeklyAddress on US press freedom : Week of May 22 – 28

first_img News Receive email alerts News Organisation RSF_en Facebook’s Oversight Board is just a stopgap, regulation urgently needed, RSF says News Reporters Without Borders (RSF) is deeply troubled by increasing hostility towards journalists in the United States. United StatesAmericas Help by sharing this information June 3, 2021 Find out more NSO Group hasn’t kept its promises on human rights, RSF and other NGOs saycenter_img 1) On Wednesday, May 24, Ben Jacobs, a reporter for The Guardian, was physically assaulted by the Republican candidate for Montana’s congressional seat, Greg Gianforte, at the candidate’s campaign headquarters in Montana. Along with an audio recording taken by Jacobs, a Fox News team witnessed the incident first-hand. Gianforte apparently grew agitated by Jacobs’ questioning of his stance on the Republican healthcare plan and allegedly “body-slammed” him to the ground, breaking his glasses. Gianforte has since been charged with misdemeanor assault but went on to win the election.2) After signing a bill on Friday, May 26 that reduces the cost to obtain a handgun license, Texas Governor Greg Abbott held up a bullet-riddled target sheet and joked, “I’m gonna carry this around in case I see any reporters.” The governor was visiting a shooting range to celebrate the new bill’s passage. 3) President Trump did not hold a single news conference or briefing during his first official trip abroad to Saudi Arabia, Israel, Brussels and Italy. On Monday, May 22, President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a joint statement to discuss the advancement of peace, the threat of Iran, and the friendship between Israel and the US. There was no opportunity for press to ask any questions. On Thursday, the US press pool was barred from President Trump’s arrival at the European Headquarters in Brussels. Live footage of the event was later posted online, and eventually official White House photographers were given access. The lack of press briefings coincided with breaking news that Jared Kushner, President Trump’s senior advisor and son-in-law, became a person of interest in the investigation into Russian interference in the presidential election. President Trump has been considering decreasing the frequency of on-camera White House press briefings. “It is appalling that the hostile anti-press rhetoric being used at various levels of the US government has now escalated to physical violence against a journalist who simply asked a question, says Margaux Ewen, RSF North America’s Advocacy and Communications Director. Furthermore, the fact that the Governor of Texas made a joke about shooting reporters just days after a journalist was physically assaulted by a Montana politician is truly alarming, as we continue to see a causal link between hostile remarks and incidents of intimidation and physical force. This new level of violence is completely unacceptable in a country founded on democratic values like a free and independent press.”The United States ranks 43rd out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2017 World Press Freedom Index after falling 2 places in the last year.For the latest updates, follow RSF on twitter @RSF_en.IMAGE CREDIT: MANDEL NGAN / AFP Follow the news on United States News June 7, 2021 Find out more April 28, 2021 Find out more WhatsApp blocks accounts of at least seven Gaza Strip journalists Below are the most concerning attacks on press freedom that occurred during the week of May 22 – 28: to go further United StatesAmericas May 30, 2017 – Updated on May 31, 2017 RSF’s #WeeklyAddress on US press freedom : Week of May 22 – 28last_img read more

Tupe in Turmoil – Time to unravel the tangle of the regulations

first_imgRelated posts:No related photos. Dr John McMullen, national head of employment law at Pinsent Curtis Biddlelaments the lack of clarity in Tupe law and urges the Government to makereformsThis year was supposed to be one of clarity in the area of transfer ofundertakings. A consultation paper is still (in theory) due from the DTI andnew Regulations designed to improve the law on Tupe and also to transpose intoUK law the Acquired Rights Directive 98/50 (the implementation date was 17 July2001) are also awaited. In the meantime, the case law on Tupe illustrates thatthe law is far from clear and law reform is urgently needed. The confusion commenced with the seminal European Court decision in Ayse Suzen,1997, IRLR 255, which stated that, in the case of a labour-intensive function,whether there will be a transfer depends on whether there is a transfer ofsignificant tangible or intangible assets or, failing that, a taking over bythe new employer of a major part of the workforce in terms of numbers andskills. The UK courts do not like the test – it is essentially circular. Whetheremployees have the right to transfer should not depend no whether they dotransfer. But it seems that the British Courts are at odds with the ECJ onthese matters. In particular, in ECM v Cox, 1999, IRLR 559 the Court of Appealintroduced a gloss to the Suzen test. If, in a labour-intensive function case,the reason for not taking on employees was purely to get around Tupe, Tupeshould still apply even in the absence of assets and/or employees. The recent European Court decision in Oy Liikenne Ab v Liskoj„rvi andJuntunen, 2001, All ER 168, on the scope of the Acquired Rights Directive wasin stark contrast to the more liberal approach taken by British courts to thequestion of whether a transfer of an undertaking has occurred. The case arose after a competitive tendering exercise in Finland resultingin a change of bus operators on a number of bus routes in Helsinki. Of 45people employed by the outgoing contractor, 33 were taken on by the newoperator, albeit on less favourable terms and conditions. No vehicles or otherassets connected with the operation of the bus routes were transferred. Theoutgoing contractor had used 26 buses but the new contractor leased only two ofthese for two or three months whilst waiting for 22 new buses to be delivered.Two of the bus drivers who had been re-engaged by the new operator brought acase in the Finnish courts arguing that a transfer of an undertaking had takenplace and that they were entitled to be employed under the same terms andconditions as they had previously enjoyed with the outgoing bus operator. The ECJ judgment confirms that a transfer can, in principle, take place in asituation where the Public Procurement Directive (EEC) 92/50 would otherwiseapply and even where there is no contractual link (as here) between transferorand transferee. But the decision on whether there was a transfer on the factsis unhelpful. Looking at the case from the perspective of British courts, given a transferof a major part of the workforce, one might have concluded that there was atransfer here. But the ECJ concluded that the Acquired Rights Directive did notapply. The type of undertaking or business concerned must always be a factorwhen deciding the test under the Directive or Tupe. True, labour-intensive operations might be the subject of a transfer eventhough no assets were transferred, but if the undertaking depended upon the useof substantial assets such as plant and equipment, the provision of the servicecould not fairly be regarded as an activity based essentially on manpower aloneand other factors had to be taken into account. So here, it was impossible torun the bus routes without buses. As the buses were not (in the main)transferred, there was no transfer even though most of the employees were takenon. This is very odd. It is an unsatisfactory decision. Maybe the undertakingwas not “labour-intensive” but, as the court found,”asset-reliant”. The mere absence of asset transfer, however, surelyshould not have been decisive. The European Court’s decision is redolent of itsjurisprudentially slipshod decision in Schmidt v Spar und Leihkasse derfrheren émter Bordesholm, Kiel und Cronshagen (Case C-392/92), 1994, IRLR 302.What of the other factors in Spijkers (see above) that may have been present,such as the circle of customers inevitably acquired, in addition to theemployees taken on? It appears that the ECJ failed properly to remit theseissues to the National Labour Court in Finland, much as it jumped to aconclusion (the opposite way) on a transfer on limited facts in Schmidt. The contemporaneous decision in the EAT in Britain, in Onyx (UK) Ltd vCheesman, 2001, IRLR 144 could not have been more different. In Cheesman, adistrict council’s stock of let-out properties was originally maintainedin-house. After CCT, Onyx won a contract and ran it for three years. Uponre-tender of the contract in March of 1998, the contract was lost by Onyx and anew contract given to R Brewer Contracts Limited. No assets, tangible orintangible, passed from Onyx to Brewer either directly or indirectly. The employeeswere all dismissed and not taken on by Brewer. An employment tribunal held that there was no transfer of an undertaking inthese circumstances. The case was appealed to the EAT before Lindsay J(President). It is important to note that the case was remitted to anemployment tribunal for further consideration on the facts and the applicablelaw, but the comments in the case made by Lindsay J are in line with theindependent approach being taken in British courts. At first glance, the employment tribunal decision seems correct on the factsand it is not abundantly clear that the tribunal had not asked the two basicquestions of whether there was an undertaking in the first place and then,secondly, whether it was transferred. However, the very criticism of the EATwas that the employment tribunal might not have asked those two questionsseparately. This decision is, at first glance, apparently attractive in that ithelpfully summarises much of the European Court case law in a succinct fashion.But in its result, it expresses a clear preference for British, conflictingcase law over and above binding European law. (On the other hand, the EAT did not however find it an error of law for thetribunal to fail to take a purposive approach in examining the motive of thenew employer in not taking on employees. No suggestion of ill motive, as in ECMv Cox, had been raised by any party and the tribunal chairman was not thereforeat fault in not specifically investigating the idea in the absence of anexpress complaint). The fact of the matter is that British law has recently appeared completelyat odds with European law. European law as mentioned above, states in the AyseSzen case that there must, on a contract changeover, be a transfer ofsignificant tangible or intangible assets (if the function is asset-reliant, asin Oy Liikenne) or, in a labour-intensive function, a taking over of a majorpart of the workforce in terms of numbers and skills. Put simply, the British courts have been ignoring this. It is true thatafter Ayse Suzen the British Court of Appeal in Betts v Brintel Helicopters,1997, IRLR 361 found there was no transfer on the changeover of a contractproviding helicopter services between Brintel and KLM on behalf of Shell. Andthis was despite the fact that KLM refused to take the employees on because ofpossible Tupe consequences. Since then, the courts have pulled in a totally different direction. Asdiscussed above, in ECM v Cox, 1999, IRLR 559, Morison J at EAT level andMummery LJ at Court of Appeal level have held that it is permissible foremployment tribunals to examine the motive of the new employer in not taking onthe employees and not putting in a Tupe bid. If the motive is to get aroundTupe, the court said, Tupe will still apply. So not only are British courts and tribunals at odds with Europe, even theBritish courts give conflicting decisions between themselves. The latest Court of Appeal case, ADI (UK) Limited v Firm Security GroupLimited, 22 June 2001, seeks to be definitive. But it is indicative of theconfusion about Tupe that all the court could manage was a majority decision. In this case, ADI was a security contractor providing security services atDarwin Shopping Centre, Shrewsbury. Nine employees were dedicated to the contract.ADI itself terminated its contract and Firm Security took on the contract inits place. No employees were taken on by Firm Security and no tangible assetswere transferred. The employment tribunal considered therefore that there wasno transfer of an undertaking. The Employment Appeal Tribunal considered that it was clearly open to anemployment tribunal in the absence of taking over a major part of the workforceor a transfer of significant tangible or intangible assets to conclude thatthere was no transfer applying the Suzen criteria, and it declined to interferewith the tribunal’s finding that there was no transfer. The case then went toappeal before Lord Justices Simon Brown, May and Dyson. In a nutshell, the majority of the Court of Appeal (Lord Justices May andDyson) confirmed the test in Suzen. They decided that, the parties havingconceded that the function of security services at Darwin Shopping Centre was adiscrete economic entity, had the employees been taken on, there would havebeen a transfer. However, in applying Suzen, it was permissible to take intoaccount the motive of the new employer in not taking on the employees. Thus, in such a case, where the employees are not taken on in circumstanceswhere if they were there would be a transfer, there will still be a transfer ifeven though the workforce is not taken on, if it is established that the reasonor principal reason for this was to avoid the application of the regulations.There is no positive burden on the person arguing against the transfer toestablish the reason for not taking on the workforce, failing which a transfershould be found. Nor is such a reason limited to an economic, technical ororganisational reason. There may be other legitimate possibilities for not taking on employees.However, undoubtedly, in this case, if an employment tribunal at first instancefound that the principal reason for Firm Security Group not taking on theemployees was to avoid the 1981 Regulations, there would be a transfer and thatwas the issue for the tribunal to consider. Lord Justice Simon Brown disagreed. The conditions in Ayse Suzen had to befollowed without a gloss and if there were no assets and no employees, therewould be no transfer whatever the reason for it. His reasoning is compelling. The whole basis of the interpretation in ECM vCox and by the majority of the Court of Appeal in ADI, is that Tupe must begiven a purposive interpretation in favour of employees to make it work. Inother words, the European Court has been at pains to stress that employees’rights should be safeguarded in the event of change of an employer so that theterms and conditions move to their transferee and are protected. It is quite another thing, however, pointed out Lord Justice Simon Brown, todeem there to be a change of employer. In other words, “it seems to be onething to say that Tupe, where it applies, must be construed purposively; quiteanother to hold that it must be deemed to apply rather than an incomingcontractor be permitted to escape it”. Lord Justice Simon Brown’s judgment echoes the decision of the EmploymentAppeal Tribunal in Brookes v Borough Care Services, 1998, IRLR 636 in which itwas held that an employer may quite legitimately choose to avoid Tupe by takingover a business by virtue of sale of shares (which involves no Tupe transferbecause there is no change of employer rather than to take a business transfer,which does. Having said that, the majority of the Court of Appeal came out in favour ofmaking the application of Suzen subject to the “ECM point”. It ishard to disagree, however, with the comment of Lord Justice May to the effectthat “it is clear that the state of the European and domestic authoritiesis unsatisfactory. I think the underlying reason for this is that there has …been judicial emasculation of the concept of legal transfer …”. Your commentator renews his plea to the Department for Trade and Industry tobring forward its proposals for the revision of the Tupe Regulations! John McMullen is National Head of Employment Law at Pinsent Curtis Biddleand author of Business Transfers and Employee Rights, the leading work on Tupe Tupe in Turmoil – Time to unravel the tangle of the regulationsOn 1 Sep 2001 in Personnel Today Comments are closed. Previous Article Next Articlelast_img read more