Restrictive Practices Court

Restrictive Practices Court (RPC)

A union may insist that certain work tasks are undertaken by several employees when arguably a smaller number of workers would be sufficient to perform the tasks (overmanning); efficiency may be impaired by DEMARCATION LINES, laid down by different unions operating in the same plant, which serve to limit job interchangeability See COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.

Restrictive Practices Court (RPC)

the former regulatory body responsible, in part, for the implementation of UK COMPETITION POLICY covering RESTRICTIVE TRADE AGREEMENTS and RESALE PRICES. The responsibilities of the RPC were taken over by the COMPETITION COMMISSION under the COMPETITION ACT, 1998.

Restrictive Practices Court (RPC)

the former regulatory body responsible, in part, for the implementation of UK COMPETITION POLICY. The basic task of the RPC was to investigate and report on cases of

RESTRICTIVE TRADE AGREEMENTS, INFORMATION AGREEMENTS and RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE referred to it by the OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING (OFT) to determine whether or not they operated against the public interest.

In 1998 the responsibilities of the RPC were taken over by the COMPETITION COMMISSION under the provision of the COMPETITION ACT 1998.

The public interest was broadly equated with the cause of promoting effective competition in the sense that the legislation in this area contained a presumption that competition is generally preferable to COLLUSION. In the case of restrictive agreements and information agreements, all such agreements were presumed to operate against the public interest unless the parties to them could prove otherwise by satisfying one or more of eight ‘gateways’ (that the agreement was beneficial, for example, because it improved efficiency, increased exports or created employment), and only then if the benefits, on balance, outweighed any detriments. Agreements found by the Court to be contrary to the public interest were automatically null and void.

Very few agreements were successfully defended: fewer than 15 in fact. The vast majority of agreements (over 9,000) registered with the OFT were abandoned voluntarily without a formal Court trial. Thus, on the surface, the attack on collusion between suppliers appeared to have been highly successful. However, there is growing evidence to suggest that many agreements had simply been driven underground and were being operated ‘secretly’.

单词	restrictive practices court
释义	Restrictive Practices Court Restrictive Practices Court (RPC) A union may insist that certain work tasks are undertaken by several employees when arguably a smaller number of workers would be sufficient to perform the tasks (overmanning); efficiency may be impaired by DEMARCATION LINES, laid down by different unions operating in the same plant, which serve to limit job interchangeability See COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. Restrictive Practices Court (RPC) the former regulatory body responsible, in part, for the implementation of UK COMPETITION POLICY covering RESTRICTIVE TRADE AGREEMENTS and RESALE PRICES. The responsibilities of the RPC were taken over by the COMPETITION COMMISSION under the COMPETITION ACT, 1998. Restrictive Practices Court (RPC) the former regulatory body responsible, in part, for the implementation of UK COMPETITION POLICY. The basic task of the RPC was to investigate and report on cases of RESTRICTIVE TRADE AGREEMENTS, INFORMATION AGREEMENTS and RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE referred to it by the OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING (OFT) to determine whether or not they operated against the public interest. In 1998 the responsibilities of the RPC were taken over by the COMPETITION COMMISSION under the provision of the COMPETITION ACT 1998. The public interest was broadly equated with the cause of promoting effective competition in the sense that the legislation in this area contained a presumption that competition is generally preferable to COLLUSION. In the case of restrictive agreements and information agreements, all such agreements were presumed to operate against the public interest unless the parties to them could prove otherwise by satisfying one or more of eight ‘gateways’ (that the agreement was beneficial, for example, because it improved efficiency, increased exports or created employment), and only then if the benefits, on balance, outweighed any detriments. Agreements found by the Court to be contrary to the public interest were automatically null and void. Very few agreements were successfully defended: fewer than 15 in fact. The vast majority of agreements (over 9,000) registered with the OFT were abandoned voluntarily without a formal Court trial. Thus, on the surface, the attack on collusion between suppliers appeared to have been highly successful. However, there is growing evidence to suggest that many agreements had simply been driven underground and were being operated ‘secretly’. AcronymsSeeRPC
随便看	the more the merrier the more, the merrier the more - the more the more the more the more, the more the more things change the more they stay the same the more things change, the more they stay the same the more you get, the more you want the more you have, the more you want the morgan library & museum the morning after the morning after (the night before) the morning after the night before the mortgage alliance company of canada the mortgage education experts the moscow news the moscow state conservatory themos kornaros the mosque cares the most 'the most baptist state in the world' the most baptist state in the world the most excellent and lamentable tragedie, of romeo and iuliet the most excellent and lamentable tragedy of romeo and juliet the most feck