In analyzing this case we will be doing so from the perspective of Labour and Employment Law which involves: Employment

ment contract Terms of an employment contract (Expressed or implied) Rights of essential workers Vicarious liability

We will also touch on Law of Tort and the Constitution of Jamaica; this will be done to aid us in making a fair analysis of the case. Further to this we will also be examining precedents from Jamaica and other countries.

Let us begin by first defining and employment contract. An employment contract is an agreement between an employee and employer that specifies the terms of employment. An employment contract may be explicit or implied. A violation of one or more of the terms in an employment contract by either an employee or employer is typically called breach of contract.

The issues found in this case are that of vicarious liability, terms of the employment contract, the right of essential services workers to strike and by extension go on a go slow, the rights of the plaintiff to service, VICARIOUS LIABILITY According to Michael A. Jones, The master has the deepest pocket p.379, therefore the wealth of a defendant will influence the decision to suit the employer rather than the employee.

In this case several issues involving statutory law (employment law) and law of tort were brought to the fore.

While the plaintiff had a legitimate argument re vicarious liability, it was discredited on the grounds that the firemen disobeyed the rules of the organization (KSAC). The KSAC was not in agreement with the action of the firemen that is to engage in industrial act in fact they stated in their rules are the rules government industrial action which they specifically forbid. It was further shown that the KSAC did not have the authority to call out the Army The firemen were in clear violation of the organizations policy that were implemented to protect the integrity of the Jamaica Fire Brigade and by extension the KSAC. It was argued that the KSAC was not in league with their actions, therefore could not be held liable. A point that could have made the plaintiff case stronger, under vicarious liability is for the defense to make the case that the reason for the industrial action could have been dealt with more speedily by the KSAC as they were aware of the importance of the firemens service and the impact it would have on the country for them to go on a go slow. On this ground, we will opined that KSAC could have been held responsible. In furtherance of this argument, it should have been argued by the plaintiff that the constitution, which is the supreme law, states that every citizen is entitle ************