Habilitationsschrift--Heidelberg.

Thesis (M.B.A.)--Ohio State University, 1951. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 102-106). Available online via OhioLINK's ETD Center

No description available.

This study flows from fundamentals by describing the raison d'etre of international competition policy: how competition law, interacts with trade policy and why that interaction has become a critical concern that should be addressed in an international cooperative framework. From this observation, this thesis concludes that policy initiatives to establish international substantive competition rules are both desirable and feasible. They are desirable because they would avoid international trade disputes deriving from conflicting implementations of trade and competition policies. They are feasible trough the application of a methodology which balances efficiency, fairness and social objectives. Such a methodology is proposed by the author for the determination of common substantive competition rules. / This set of proposals identifies changes that would be acceptable to most national participants in world trade and classifies trade practices into three categories: First, the trade practices prohibited per se, for which international standards can be reached in a short time; second, the trade practices examined under a rule-of-reason approach for which some common standards seem obtainable only in a mid-term frame given the existing divergent antitrust philosophies; third, international mergers and antidumping laws for which, given the strong industrial policy considerations, international substantive rules are not likely to emerge in the foreseeable future. / Finally, as practical illustration, this thesis explores the long-run potential for replacing anti-competitive aspects of current antidumping laws with more efficient and more equitable competition-policy safeguards. The substitution of the international price discrimination standard commonly applied in antidumping review by the predatory pricing standard favoured under antitrust investigations can be achieved through the introduction of two criteria: determination of the "impact on the domestic economy, as a whole" and calculation of the variable cost standard.

No description available.

Zugl.: Heidelberg, Universiẗat, Diss., 2007 u.d.T.: Abschöpfung des Unlauterkeitsgewinns. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 309-326).

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Bern, 1973. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 157-162).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Chicago, 1912. / "A Private edition distributed by the University of Chicago libraries, 1916." "A Trade edition is distributed by the Geo. Banta publishing co., Menasha, Wisconsin." Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Chicago, 1912. / "A Private edition distributed by the University of Chicago libraries, 1916." "A Trade edition is distributed by the Geo. Banta publishing co., Menasha, Wisconsin."

Suspension as a form of an unfair labour practice can be of two categories. There could be a situation where an employer suspends an employee as a disciplinary sanction after an employee has committed an act of misconduct. This is often referred to as a punitive suspension. An employer may also suspend an employee pending a disciplinary hearing. In this case the employee has not yet been found guilty because the investigation into the alleged misconduct is still on going. The employee may be suspended as a way of preventing him from interfering with the investigation process into the alleged misconduct. This form of suspension is often referred to as a preventative suspension. It is very important to note the distinction between the two forms of suspension because the processes that are followed when effecting them are different. Failure to acknowledge the difference might result in a situation where an employer might be effecting a preventative suspension but the consequences might be that of a punitive suspension and end-up being an unfair labour practice. Suspension is a disciplinary measure, and it is important to note that in the event that the employer elects to implement a suspension, its conduct must be disciplinary in nature and intent and should be corrective rather than punitive.Unlike dismissals where the Code of Good Practice of the Labour Relations Act, No 66 of 1995 provides guidance on what constitutes procedural and substantive fairness, there are no guidelines on what constitutes procedural and substantive fairness when it comes to suspensions. This has resulted in a situation where suspension is treated as a minor aspect of disciplinary measures that is frequently abused as it is often on full remuneration. This, however, does not allow an employer to suspend employees at will, without merit and without following proper procedure. Suspension could have severe adverse effects on employees and often affects their reputation, goodwill, human dignity, self-esteem and the right to meaningful association and work. It is for this reason that suspension must be effected in a way that is procedurally and substantively fair.Punitive suspension is implemented as a sanction and is often without pay and is a last resort prior to dismissal. Preventative suspension occurs prior to a disciplinary hearing, with the aim of temporarily removing the employee from the workplace to enable the employer to conduct a proper investigation without interference. Unfortunately preventative suspensions are often abused by employers in that they protract over extended periods of time, making the preventative suspension punitive in nature, to the extent that the courts have been forced to intervene and lay down stringent requirements that must be met in order to prevent such abuse.There are various requirements for suspension which range from the intention of the employer, the audi alteram partem rule, sufficient reasons prior to suspension to period of suspension. Most employment relationships are governed by disciplinary codes or collective agreements, which often place limitations on the concept of suspension. Some codes provide for special leave at the option of the employee, which the employer often abuses instead of utilizing the preventative suspension option. This, however, is more often than not to suit a political agenda.In the event of non-compliance by an employer, an employee is not left remediless. An unfair suspension constitutes an unfair labour practice and an employee has the right to refer such dispute to the relevant labour forums like the CCMA or the relevant bargaining council. Employees are cautioned not to refer their disputes to the Labour Court for final relief, but rather to only approach the courts for urgent interim relief, like interdicts.