Search results

Women in prison throughout the world experience higher rates of mental and physical illness compared with the general population and compared with men in prison. The paper finds no published studies that report on men or women in prison engaging in participatory health research to address their concerns about nutrition and fitness. The purpose of this paper is to describe a pilot nutrition and fitness program, which resulted from a unique prison participatory health research project.

Women in prison designed, led, and evaluated a six-week pilot fitness program in a minimum/medium security women's prison. Pre- and post-program assessments included a self-administered questionnaire and body measures. Open-ended questionnaire responses illuminated the quantitative findings.

Sixteen women in prison completed the program evaluation. Weight, body mass index, waist-to-hip ratio, and chest measurements decreased, and energy, sleep, and stress levels improved by the end of the program.

As a component of a participatory research project, incarcerated women designed and led a nutrition and fitness program, which resulted in improved body measures and self-reported health benefits.

Incarceration provides opportunities to engage women in designing their own health programs with consequent potential long-term “healing” benefits.

It will be recalled that the last monograph treated the significance of the collective agreement in society. If solely a function in society, (though having a legal basis), were to be attributed to the collective agreement, this would mean that no rights or obligations whatsoever would be created between the parties to it. This is not so in practice. It is of course a fact that no legally enforceable rights and obligations normally accrue, and as already indicated, those are moral ones and are only enforceable in honour, i.e. a gentleman's agreement. Nevertheless, this does not necessarily mean that the collective agreement has no juridical significance. Even agreements which are binding in honour only, as for example the kind of agreement found in Balfour v. Balfour, have a known juridical nature. Furthermore, though the collective agreement is only binding in honour, its incorporation into the individual contract of employment makes its terms legally enforceable even though recourse to the courts is seldom had. As a source of rights and obligations of considerable importance the collective agreement must therefore have some juridical significance and cannot remain entirely in the realms of society.

A circular letter addressed by the Local Government Board on the 27th October, 1913, to Authorities administering the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, is printed as an Addendum to a recently issued Report by DR. MACFADDEN, on the work of the Board's Inspectors of Foods during the year 1913–14. This letter relates to the administration of the “Public Health (Milk and Cream) Regulations, 1912,” and points out that by these Regulations “ a definite restriction ” has been placed on the use of preservatives by producers, retailers and others concerned in the milk and cream trade, that no preservative is to be added to milk in‐any case, that no preservative is to be added to cream which is sold as cream, and that the Regulations do not prohibit the sale of cream containing boric acid, borax, or a mixture of these preservative substances, or hydrogen peroxide, provided (1) that it is sold not as cream, but as preserved cream, and (2) that the vessel in which it is sold bears a declaration in the prescribed form, showing the amount and nature of the particular preservative added, the addition to cream of any other preservative substances than those mentioned being prohibited. It is further stated that the object of the Regulations in regard to cream is to secure that preserved cream sold in compliance with the Regulations shall be distinguished at all stages of sale from cream to which no preservative has been added, and that this distinction is important in the interests of the public generally, and particularly in the interests of children and invalids. The italics are ours. In view of this pronouncement by the Board it is pertinent to enquire as to the fate of the extraordinary recommendation made in one of the Board's recent official reports to the effect that a much larger maximum amount of preservative should be allowed in cream during the six warmer months of the year than during the other six months. If a maximum limit is fixed for any period it is plain that the presence of an amount of preservative in excess of that limit is regarded by the Board as capable of rendering the cream injurious to health—at any rate in so far as children and invalids are concerned. It follows, therefore, that the adoption of the recommendation referred to would result in the sale of cream which, on the Board's own showing, must be injurious to health, during the warmer months of the year. The recommendation in question has been put forward as an argument for the defence in cases of prosecution for the adulteration of cream with preservatives, and in view of its official or semi‐official nature, has created unnecessary difficulties for the prosecuting Authorities. It is true that in the Sessions Appeal case of Whale v. Bennett, the character of this recommendation was thoroughly exposed and that the proposal was effectively disposed of, but it is none the less serious and inconvenient that such a suggestion should have been allowed to appear in a Government Report. We hope that we may now be permitted to congratulate the Board on the fact that they have officially repudiated the recommendation in question. The circular letter urges Local Authorities administering the Food and Drugs Acts to see that the “Milk and Cream Regulations, 1912,” are enforced in their districts “by the administrative procedure authorised under the Regulations, and, should necessity arise, by the institution of proceedings under the public health enactments referred to in the note appended to the Regulations.” It is, however, admitted by the Board in this letter that the action taken under the Regulations is independent of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts and does not affect the action which may be taken under those Acts and that it is open to the Authority “ on consideration of the report of a Public Analyst on a sample of milk or cream to take action either under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts or under the Regulations,” but the Board considers that “it is generally desirable that in cases in which it appears that the Regulations have been infringed, such action as may be necessary should be taken under the Regulations rather than under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts.” We are unable to agree with this view. The appeal cases of Cullen v. McNair and Whale v. Bennett have resulted in the decisive establishment of the fact that the presence of boric preservatives in cream to the extent mentioned in those cases renders the adulterated cream injurious to health, and, in all cases where samples of cream are found to contain such amounts of this adulterant, Local Authorities will be well advised to institute proceedings under the Third Section of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875. The Sixth Section of the Act of 1875 has been shown to be useless by the decision in the Sessions appeal case of Williams v. Friend, whereas under the Third Section notification of the presence of the amount of the adulterant affords no protection to the adulterator, and the law in this respect is not and cannot be over‐ridden by the “ Milk and Cream Regulations, 1912.” The principal blot on the Milk and Cream Regulations, 1912, is that under these Regulations any amount of an injurious preservative may be added with impunity to cream so long as the cream is sold as “ preserved cream ” and the amount of the preservative present is stated on the label—provisions which are perfectly worthless so far as the protection of the ordinary purchaser is concerned.

In order to succeed in an action under the Equal Pay Act 1970, should the woman and the man be employed by the same employer on like work at the same time or would the woman still be covered by the Act if she were employed on like work in succession to the man? This is the question which had to be solved in Macarthys Ltd v. Smith. Unfortunately it was not. Their Lordships interpreted the relevant section in different ways and since Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome was also subject to different interpretations, the case has been referred to the European Court of Justice.

This monograph contains abstracts from the 2005 Employment Research Unit Annual Conference Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, 6‐7th September 2005

“Consumerism”, for want of a better description, is given to the mass of statutory control (which shows no sign of declining) of standards, trading justice to the consumer, means of redress to those who have been misled and defrauded, advice to those in doubt; and to the widespread movement, mostly in the Western world, to achieve these ends.

April 17, 1973 Industrial Relations — “Industrial dispute” — New definition not covering dispute between workmen and workmen — Lighterman deliberately allowing trade union membership to lapse — Union endorsing fellow workers' refusal to work with lapsed member — Employers warned of withdrawal of all labour if non‐unionist kept in employment — Employers acquiescing in union policy by sending non‐unionist off work on full pay — Whether warnings to employers “in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute” where no dispute between employers and workers — Whether employers entitled to bring proceedings in tort in High Court if no industrial dispute giving immunity to alleged unlawful threats by union — Whether interlocutory injunction before trial of action appropriate on balance of convenience — Industrial Relations Act, 1971 (c.72), ss. 5(2), 33(3), 132(1), 167(1).

Whatever debates may have taken place in the past in the courts and elsewhere on the status of trade unions, current legislation provides that a “… trade union … is not a body corporate …” and “…shall not be treated as if it were a body corporate…” For practical reasons however, a trade union is, inter alia, “… capable of making contracts …” which includes the entering into a collective agreement.

The sealing of samples purchased under the provisions of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts has recently been on more than one occasion the subject of articles or letters in this journal. In November last, at a meeting of “The Society of Public Analysts and Other Analytical Chemists,” Mr. H. Droop Richmond opened a formal discussion on the matter, but it cannot be said that the proceedings contributed much to our knowledge of what has taken place in the past, revealed any satisfactory remedy likely to be applicable in the future, or even definitely settled whether any change in our present practice was really required.

Times were tough for the heads of Australian independent schools in the 1950s and 1960s. In New South Wales alone, Knox Grammar School lost two, Barker College and P. L. C. Croydon one each in the 1950s and Newington College had lost two and Meriden School one in the 1960s. And in 1965, Allen McLucas was forced to resign from The Scots College Sydney. Behind these problems of governance and leadership in independent schools lay deeper social and moral changes in the broader community and changing educational philosophies.