There are many factors to be considered when studying the lighting of industrial arts shops. Adequate light is one of the most important factors, and by adequate lighting is meant light that is sufficient in quantity and quality. Other factors to be considered include the location of the shops in the building, the windows, interior painting, width, and length, and the ceiling height of the shoprooms. The study herein is directed toward better lighting in the industrial arts shops for more efficient work.

Government intervention in the financial and social affairs of citizens has increased dramatically in the last fifty years. As a result, government administrative decisions continually affect the everyday lives of people. Many of these decisions are discretionary. Modern administrative law has grown to meet the need for governments, rather than the courts, to supervise the exercise of administrative power so that injustice resulting from misuse of power can be avoided. The merits review system is an integral part of this administrative law. The effectiveness of the merits review system is dependent upon how Parliament makes provision for merits review in the legislative process. The object of this thesis is to analyse and evaluate the effectiveness of the scope of the Commonwealth administrative law merits review system. An evaluation of the availability of rights of review of the merits of Commonwealth administrative decisions will determine the extent to which Commonwealth law provides for merits review of administrative decisions. This thesis makes such an evaluation by undertaking an empirical study of the merits review provisions in Commonwealth legislation. The empirical study analyses 1,070 Commonwealth statutes and establishes that there are 340 statutes that confer power to make a reviewable decision or decisions. However, only 30 percent of these statutes provide for merits review of all reviewable decisions, while 44 percent provide for merits review of some decisions and 26 percent do not provide for merits review of any decisions. Consequently, the empirical study identifies inconsistencies in the provision of merits review of Commonwealth administrative decisions. The Australian parliamentary executive system of government has permitted a breakdown in the legislative drafting process that has allowed these inconsistencies to develop. Moreover, the executive arm of the Commonwealth government has diminished its accountability to Parliament for some of the administrative decisions made by it. A person affected by an unreviewable administrative decision may be treated unjustly as a result.

Government intervention in the financial and social affairs of citizens has increased dramatically in the last fifty years. As a result, government administrative decisions continually affect the everyday lives of people. Many of these decisions are discretionary. Modern administrative law has grown to meet the need for governments, rather than the courts, to supervise the exercise of administrative power so that injustice resulting from misuse of power can be avoided. The merits review system is an integral part of this administrative law. The effectiveness of the merits review system is dependent upon how Parliament makes provision for merits review in the legislative process. The object of this thesis is to analyse and evaluate the effectiveness of the scope of the Commonwealth administrative law merits review system. An evaluation of the availability of rights of review of the merits of Commonwealth administrative decisions will determine the extent to which Commonwealth law provides for merits review of administrative decisions. This thesis makes such an evaluation by undertaking an empirical study of the merits review provisions in Commonwealth legislation. The empirical study analyses 1,070 Commonwealth statutes and establishes that there are 340 statutes that confer power to make a reviewable decision or decisions. However, only 30 percent of these statutes provide for merits review of all reviewable decisions, while 44 percent provide for merits review of some decisions and 26 percent do not provide for merits review of any decisions. Consequently, the empirical study identifies inconsistencies in the provision of merits review of Commonwealth administrative decisions. The Australian parliamentary executive system of government has permitted a breakdown in the legislative drafting process that has allowed these inconsistencies to develop. Moreover, the executive arm of the Commonwealth government has diminished its accountability to Parliament for some of the administrative decisions made by it. A person affected by an unreviewable administrative decision may be treated unjustly as a result.

Government intervention in the financial and social affairs of citizens has increased dramatically in the last fifty years. As a result, government administrative decisions continually affect the everyday lives of people. Many of these decisions are discretionary. Modern administrative law has grown to meet the need for governments, rather than the courts, to supervise the exercise of administrative power so that injustice resulting from misuse of power can be avoided. The merits review system is an integral part of this administrative law. The effectiveness of the merits review system is dependent upon how Parliament makes provision for merits review in the legislative process. The object of this thesis is to analyse and evaluate the effectiveness of the scope of the Commonwealth administrative law merits review system. An evaluation of the availability of rights of review of the merits of Commonwealth administrative decisions will determine the extent to which Commonwealth law provides for merits review of administrative decisions. This thesis makes such an evaluation by undertaking an empirical study of the merits review provisions in Commonwealth legislation. The empirical study analyses 1,070 Commonwealth statutes and establishes that there are 340 statutes that confer power to make a reviewable decision or decisions. However, only 30 percent of these statutes provide for merits review of all reviewable decisions, while 44 percent provide for merits review of some decisions and 26 percent do not provide for merits review of any decisions. Consequently, the empirical study identifies inconsistencies in the provision of merits review of Commonwealth administrative decisions. The Australian parliamentary executive system of government has permitted a breakdown in the legislative drafting process that has allowed these inconsistencies to develop. Moreover, the executive arm of the Commonwealth government has diminished its accountability to Parliament for some of the administrative decisions made by it. A person affected by an unreviewable administrative decision may be treated unjustly as a result.

Government intervention in the financial and social affairs of citizens has increased dramatically in the last fifty years. As a result, government administrative decisions continually affect the everyday lives of people. Many of these decisions are discretionary. Modern administrative law has grown to meet the need for governments, rather than the courts, to supervise the exercise of administrative power so that injustice resulting from misuse of power can be avoided. The merits review system is an integral part of this administrative law. The effectiveness of the merits review system is dependent upon how Parliament makes provision for merits review in the legislative process. The object of this thesis is to analyse and evaluate the effectiveness of the scope of the Commonwealth administrative law merits review system. An evaluation of the availability of rights of review of the merits of Commonwealth administrative decisions will determine the extent to which Commonwealth law provides for merits review of administrative decisions. This thesis makes such an evaluation by undertaking an empirical study of the merits review provisions in Commonwealth legislation. The empirical study analyses 1,070 Commonwealth statutes and establishes that there are 340 statutes that confer power to make a reviewable decision or decisions. However, only 30 percent of these statutes provide for merits review of all reviewable decisions, while 44 percent provide for merits review of some decisions and 26 percent do not provide for merits review of any decisions. Consequently, the empirical study identifies inconsistencies in the provision of merits review of Commonwealth administrative decisions. The Australian parliamentary executive system of government has permitted a breakdown in the legislative drafting process that has allowed these inconsistencies to develop. Moreover, the executive arm of the Commonwealth government has diminished its accountability to Parliament for some of the administrative decisions made by it. A person affected by an unreviewable administrative decision may be treated unjustly as a result.

Government intervention in the financial and social affairs of citizens has increased dramatically in the last fifty years. As a result, government administrative decisions continually affect the everyday lives of people. Many of these decisions are discretionary. Modern administrative law has grown to meet the need for governments, rather than the courts, to supervise the exercise of administrative power so that injustice resulting from misuse of power can be avoided. The merits review system is an integral part of this administrative law. The effectiveness of the merits review system is dependent upon how Parliament makes provision for merits review in the legislative process. The object of this thesis is to analyse and evaluate the effectiveness of the scope of the Commonwealth administrative law merits review system. An evaluation of the availability of rights of review of the merits of Commonwealth administrative decisions will determine the extent to which Commonwealth law provides for merits review of administrative decisions. This thesis makes such an evaluation by undertaking an empirical study of the merits review provisions in Commonwealth legislation. The empirical study analyses 1,070 Commonwealth statutes and establishes that there are 340 statutes that confer power to make a reviewable decision or decisions. However, only 30 percent of these statutes provide for merits review of all reviewable decisions, while 44 percent provide for merits review of some decisions and 26 percent do not provide for merits review of any decisions. Consequently, the empirical study identifies inconsistencies in the provision of merits review of Commonwealth administrative decisions. The Australian parliamentary executive system of government has permitted a breakdown in the legislative drafting process that has allowed these inconsistencies to develop. Moreover, the executive arm of the Commonwealth government has diminished its accountability to Parliament for some of the administrative decisions made by it. A person affected by an unreviewable administrative decision may be treated unjustly as a result.

Government intervention in the financial and social affairs of citizens has increased dramatically in the last fifty years. As a result, government administrative decisions continually affect the everyday lives of people. Many of these decisions are discretionary. Modern administrative law has grown to meet the need for governments, rather than the courts, to supervise the exercise of administrative power so that injustice resulting from misuse of power can be avoided. The merits review system is an integral part of this administrative law. The effectiveness of the merits review system is dependent upon how Parliament makes provision for merits review in the legislative process. The object of this thesis is to analyse and evaluate the effectiveness of the scope of the Commonwealth administrative law merits review system. An evaluation of the availability of rights of review of the merits of Commonwealth administrative decisions will determine the extent to which Commonwealth law provides for merits review of administrative decisions. This thesis makes such an evaluation by undertaking an empirical study of the merits review provisions in Commonwealth legislation. The empirical study analyses 1,070 Commonwealth statutes and establishes that there are 340 statutes that confer power to make a reviewable decision or decisions. However, only 30 percent of these statutes provide for merits review of all reviewable decisions, while 44 percent provide for merits review of some decisions and 26 percent do not provide for merits review of any decisions. Consequently, the empirical study identifies inconsistencies in the provision of merits review of Commonwealth administrative decisions. The Australian parliamentary executive system of government has permitted a breakdown in the legislative drafting process that has allowed these inconsistencies to develop. Moreover, the executive arm of the Commonwealth government has diminished its accountability to Parliament for some of the administrative decisions made by it. A person affected by an unreviewable administrative decision may be treated unjustly as a result.

Le recours à la stratégie du recentrage sur le cœur de métier (core business) par les entreprises fait apparaître, en discours comme en pratique, trois mouvements qui déstabilisent les ensembles bureaucratiques: la réorganisation de la grande firme en « centres de profits », la multiplication des relations inter-firmes et un changement d’ordre qualitatif dans les termes de l’échange. L’avènement et le maintien de ce que nous convenons d’appeler l’« entreprise réseau » demeurent à ce jour problématique : soit cette forme organisationnelle serait le résultat d’une adaptation unilatérale à son environnement; soit la dynamique sociale serait réglée par la confiance entre les acteurs. Notre démarche inductive et exploratoire d’un cas d’entreprise réseau québécoise veut contribuer au démontage de la notion, puis à la compréhension sociologique du phénomène. Nous constatons que cette forme d’entreprise ne peut être comprise que lorsque nous la mettons en perspective avec l’entreprise bureaucratique. / The strategic focus on the core business by bureaucratic firms contributed to the destabilization of this organizational form in three ways: the move to small « profits centers », the multiplication of exchange relations between firms and the changing nature of the relationships between them. The literature that explains the why and how of what we conceptualize as a « network firm » is still problematic. This management literature has two paradigms: either this organizational form is the result of a unilateral adaptation it’s environment ; either the social dynamic between firms is only based on trust. Our inductive research design is based on a single case of a multinational network Quebec firm. It tries to contribute to the analysis of this concept and to its sociological understanding. We conclude that this organizational form cannot be fully understood unless it is putted in perspective with the bureaucratic firm.

Dans notre monde actuel, les entreprises utilisent, pour se prémunir de toute atteinte et protéger au maximum leurs intérêts économiques, des techniques contractuelles élaborées par la pratique telles que les clauses de non-concurrence, les clauses de confidentialité, les clauses de non-réaffiliation et les clauses de non sollicitation.Ces clauses occupent de multiples champs de l’activité contractuelle en mêlant le droit des contrats, le droit des affaires et le droit du travail. Elles visent à interdire au cocontractant, d’exercer une activité professionnelle, de divulguer des informations secrètes, ou encore d’embaucher certains collaborateurs. Ainsi, elles viennent limiter une liberté fondamentale, plus spécialement la liberté du commerce et de l’industrie. Dès lors, il semble nécessaire d’élaborer un régime juridique commun à toutes ces clauses afin de préserver d’un coté la protection de l’activité économique des entreprises et de l’autre la sauvegarde de la liberté économique des contractants soumis à de telles clauses. L’intérêt d’un régime commun est d’anticiper les conditions de validité et de mise en œuvre des ce type de clauses. De cette façon, la prévisibilité ne ferait plus défaut aux contractants. L’élaboration de ce droit commun passe par deux étapes. La première est relative à l’identification des clauses limitatives de concurrence. Il s’agit de saisir leur autonomie par rapport aux contrats dans lesquels elles peuvent être insérées et d’en tirer les conséquences au niveau leur validité. La seconde est relative à la mise en œuvre de ces clauses. Leur application est délicate car dépendante pour une grande partie de la précision de leur contenu. En cas de non-respect, un vaste choix de remèdes est offert au contractant déçu pour venir sanctionner le manquement contractuel constaté. / In the modern world, to guard themselves from damage and to protect at best their economical interests, companies use contractual techniques developed by usage such as non-compete clauses,confidentiality clauses, non-reaffiliation clauses and non-solicitation clauses. These clauses cover many fields of contractual legality, mixing contract law, labor law and business law. Their aim is to prohibit the co-contractor to practice a professional activity, to disclose secret information, or even to employ specific colleagues, or contributors. Thus, they are brought to restrict a fundamental freedom, specifically the freedom of trade and of industry. As a result, it appears necessary to formulate a common legal system for all these clauses so as to preserve on one side the protection of the economic activity of the companies et on the other side the safeguard of the economic freedom of the co-contractors subject to these clauses. The benefit of a common legal system is the anticipation of the conditions of validity and implementation of this type of clause. In this way, the cocontractants will not lack in foresight. The development of this common right is in two steps. This includes confirming their autonomy relative to the contracts in which they may be inserted and draw the necessary conclusions regarding their validity. The second step is relative to the implementation of these clauses. Their application is sensitive because it depends for the most part on the precision of their content. In case of a breach of contract, a large array of legal remedies is available to the aggrieved contractor to penalize the breach of contract.

Le recours à la stratégie du recentrage sur le cœur de métier (core business) par les entreprises fait apparaître, en discours comme en pratique, trois mouvements qui déstabilisent les ensembles bureaucratiques: la réorganisation de la grande firme en « centres de profits », la multiplication des relations inter-firmes et un changement d’ordre qualitatif dans les termes de l’échange. L’avènement et le maintien de ce que nous convenons d’appeler l’« entreprise réseau » demeurent à ce jour problématique : soit cette forme organisationnelle serait le résultat d’une adaptation unilatérale à son environnement; soit la dynamique sociale serait réglée par la confiance entre les acteurs. Notre démarche inductive et exploratoire d’un cas d’entreprise réseau québécoise veut contribuer au démontage de la notion, puis à la compréhension sociologique du phénomène. Nous constatons que cette forme d’entreprise ne peut être comprise que lorsque nous la mettons en perspective avec l’entreprise bureaucratique. / The strategic focus on the core business by bureaucratic firms contributed to the destabilization of this organizational form in three ways: the move to small « profits centers », the multiplication of exchange relations between firms and the changing nature of the relationships between them. The literature that explains the why and how of what we conceptualize as a « network firm » is still problematic. This management literature has two paradigms: either this organizational form is the result of a unilateral adaptation it’s environment ; either the social dynamic between firms is only based on trust. Our inductive research design is based on a single case of a multinational network Quebec firm. It tries to contribute to the analysis of this concept and to its sociological understanding. We conclude that this organizational form cannot be fully understood unless it is putted in perspective with the bureaucratic firm.