Groningen is the main municipality as well as the capital city of the eponymous province in the Netherlands. It is the largest city in the north of the Netherlands and has 231,037 inhabitants on a total area of 180.21 km2, land area of 168.93 km2 with a population density of 1,367 per km2. It merged with Ten Boer and Haren municipalities in 1 January 2019; the Groningen-Assen metropolitan area has about half a million inhabitants. Groningen is an old city and was the regional power of the north of the Netherlands, a semi-independent city-state and member of the German Hanseatic League. Groningen is a university city, with an estimated 31,000 students at the University of Groningen, an estimated 28,000 at the Hanze University of Applied Sciences; the city was founded at the northernmost point of the Hondsrug area. The oldest document referring to Groningen's existence dates from 1040. However, the city existed long before then: the oldest archaeological traces found are believed to stem from the years 3950–3720 BC, although the first major settlement in Groningen has been traced back to the 3rd century AD.

In the 13th century, when Groningen was an important trade centre, its inhabitants built a city wall to underline its authority. The city made its dialect a common tongue; the most influential period of the city was the end of the 15th century, when the nearby province of Friesland was administered from Groningen. During these years, the Martinitoren 127 metres tall, was built; the city's independence ended in 1536, when it chose to accept Emperor Charles V, the Habsburg ruler of the other Netherlands, as its overlord. In 1594, until held by Spain, was captured by a Dutch and English force led by Maurice of Nassau. Soon afterwards the city and the province joined the Republic of the Seven United Provinces. In 1614, the University of Groningen was founded only for religious education. In the same period the city expanded and a new city wall was built; that same city wall was tested during the Third Anglo-Dutch War in 1672, when the city was attacked fiercely by the bishop of Münster, Bernhard von Galen.

The city walls resisted, an event, still celebrated with music and fireworks on 28 August. The city did not escape the devastation of World War II. In particular, the main square, the Grote Markt, was destroyed in April 1945 in the Battle of Groningen. However, the Martinitoren, its church, the Goudkantoor, the city hall were not damaged; the battle lasted several days. Groningen has an oceanic temperate climate, like all of the Netherlands, although colder in winter than other major cities in the Netherlands due to its northeasterly position. Weather is influenced by the North Sea to the north-west and its prevailing north-western winds and gales. Summers are somewhat humid. Temperatures of 30 °C or higher occur sporadically. Rainy periods are common in spring and summer. Average annual precipitation is about 800 mm. Annual sunshine hours vary, but are below 1600 hours, giving much cloud cover similar to most of the Netherlands. Climate in this area has mild differences between highs and lows, there is adequate rainfall year-round.

The Köppen Climate Classification subtype for this climate is "Cfb".. Winters are cool: on average above freezing, although frosts are common during spells of easterly wind from Germany and Siberia. Night-time temperatures of −10 °C or lower are not uncommon during cold winter periods; the lowest temperature recorded is −26.8 °C on 16 February 1956. Snow falls, but stays long due to warmer daytime temperatures, although white snowy days happen every winter; the municipality of Groningen has grown rapidly. In 1968 it expanded by mergers with Hoogkerk and Noorddijk, in 2019 it merged with Haren and Ten Boer. All historical data are for the original city limits, excluding Hoogkerk, Noorddijk and Ten Boer; until there were two large sugar refineries within the city boundaries. The Suiker Unie plant was outside Groningen, but it was swallowed by the expansion of the city. After a campaign to close the factory, it was shut down in 2008/2009. Before closing down, its sugar production amounted to 250,000 tonnes of beet sugar, with 250 employees.

The only remaining sugar factory is CSM Vierverlaten in Hoogkerk, which produces 235,000 tonnes of beet sugar, with 283 employees. Well known companies from Groningen are publishing company Noordhoff Uitgevers, tobacco company Royal Theodorus Niemeyer, health insurance company Menzis, distillery Hooghoudt, natural gas companies GasUnie and GasTerra. There is an increased focus on business services. In addition, the hotel and catering industry forms a significant part of the economy of Groningen; the city is nationally known as the "Metropolis of the North" and as "Martinistad" referring to the tower of the Martinitoren, named after its patron saint Martin of Tours. Although Groningen is not a large city, it does have an important role as the main urban centre of this part of the country in the fields of music and other arts and business; the large number of students living in Groningen contributes to a diverse cultural scene for a city of its size. Since 201

Emblem of Jammu and Kashmir

The Emblem of Jammu and Kashmir was a symbol used to represent the government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, India. The state of Jammu and Kashmir was reorganised into two union territories and Kashmir and Ladakh, on 31 October 2019; the new union territory of Jammu and Kashmir has not as yet adopted a distinct symbol for official use and instead uses the words "Government of Jammu and Kashmir" on official documents. A new emblem was adopted by the State of Jammu and Kashmir in November 1952 when the monarchy of was formally abolished, it was designed by Mohan Rania. Prior to the adoption of the that emblem and Kashmir used the coat of arms of Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir; the state of Jammu and Kashmir was reorganised into two union territories, the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh on 31 October 2019. The new union territory of Jammu and Kashmir has not as yet adopted a distinct emblem and instead uses the words "Government of Jammu and Kashmir" on official documents without any other symbol or insignia.

The emblem was in the style of socialist heraldry. It depicted a lotus flower rising out of a lake as its central elements; the lake was supported by ears of grain. Below is a triangular representation of a mountain peak and a banner bearing the name of the state in English; the three broad stripes shown within the lake represented the three geographical areas of the state at the time the emblem was adopted, the Jammu region, the Kashmir Valley and Ladakh. Flag of Jammu and Kashmir National Emblem of India List of Indian state emblems

McCormick v Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP

McCormick v Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP 2014 SCC 39 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in distinguishing relationships of partnership from those of employment. In 1979, McCormick became an equity partner at the law firm Fasken Martineau. Subsequently, in the 1980s, the equity partners voted to adopt a provision in their Partnership Agreement that required equity partners to retire as equity partners and divest their ownership shares at the end of the year in which they turned 65. A partner could make individual arrangements to continue working as an employee or as a "regular" partner, but such arrangements were stated in the Agreement to be the exception rather than the rule. In 2009, when he was 64, McCormick brought a complaint to the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal arguing that this provision constituted age discrimination in employment, contrary to s. 13 of the province's Human Rights Code. The law firm applied to have the complaint dismissed on the grounds that, as an equity partner, McCormick was not in a workplace relationship covered by the Code.

The Tribunal, based on the factors of utilization, financial burden, remedial purpose used in previous decisions, concluded that an employment relationship did exist and therefore s. 13 applied: Fasken "utilized" Mr. McCormick to provide legal services to the firm's clients and to generate intellectual property. Fasken exercised control over Mr. McCormick through the direction given by managing partners and client and file managers. Despite the fact that the partnership involves sharing profits rather than paying fixed wages, the firm had the burden of determining and paying Mr. McCormick's compensation. Allegations that Fasken treated Mr. McCormick differently because of his age engaged the broad remedial purposes of the Code. Fasken's application for judicial review was dismissed by the British Columbia Supreme Court. In her ruling upholding the Tribunal's decision, Bruce J stated: Mr. McCormick is an equity partner with little control over his work life, his remuneration, his work product.

The firm, through its board and managing partners, dictates what occurs in the workplace and, to a certain extent, what Mr. McCormick does outside of the office. In this partnership an individual equity partner cannot determine his own wages and working conditions. Nor does he have the power, through his voting rights or his bargaining strength, to change the partnership agreement in ways that would be favourable to him. An individual partner is always subject to the wishes of the majority and the control exercised by the managing partners and the executive board, it is by these means that the firm represents a relationship with Mr. McCormick, more reflective of an employer/employee relationship, favouring an overall finding that Mr. McCormick is "employed" by Fasken for the purposes of the Code; the BCSC ruling was reversed on appeal. In her ruling, Levine JA observed that that ruling misinterpreted certain provisions of the BC Partnership Act, declared: There is no doubt that a partnership may employ other persons — Fasken concedes it employs associate lawyers and staff.

In those employment relationships, it makes no legal or commercial difference whether the partnership is viewed as a separate entity or a collective of the partners. Third parties, including employees of the partnership, are entitled to the same rights and obligations as against a partnership as they are as against a corporation or a proprietorship, including protection from discriminatory employment practices; this result flows from the somewhat complex body of law governing the relationship of partnership as among the partners, between partners and third parties. That same body of law makes it a legal impossibility for a partner to be "employed" by the partnership of which he is a member. In my opinion, neither a broad and purposive interpretation of the Code nor the analysis of the factual criteria of "utilization", "control", "financial burden", or "remedial purpose" can change that legal conclusion. No express exemption is required to exclude from the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Code a relationship to which, by law, the Code does not extend.

The appeal was dismissed with costs. Abella J, began her opinion with this observation: For the reasons that follow, I agree with the Court of Appeal that the Tribunal's decision was incorrect and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction over Mr. McCormick's relationship with the firm, but do not accept that a partner can never be an employee for purposes of the Code; the key is the degree of dependency. While different lists of factors have been employed by Canadian tribunals and courts to determine whether an employment relationship exists, "the consistent animating themes are control and dependency." In that regard: Relying on a formalistic approach to a master and servant relationship resurrects an unduly restrictive traditional test for employment. The test is, responsible for determining working conditions and financial benefits and to what extent does a worker have an influential say in those determinations? The more the work life of individuals is controlled, the greater their dependency and their economic and psychological vulnerability in the workplace.

The approach taken by the Supreme Court of the United States in similar cases was endorsed. In summary, she noted: Control and dependency, in other words, are a function not only of whether the worker receives immediate direction from, or is affected by the decisions of others, but whether he or she has the ability to influence decisions that critically affect his or her working life; the answers to these questions represent the compass for determining the true natu