Category: Employment Law

Introduction

This report captures Turner v. Uniglobe Custom Travel Ltd., 2005 ABQB 513, Vrana v. Procor Limited, 2004 ABCA 126, Donavan Bravo v. Etobicoke Ironworks Limited, and David E. Glover Plaintiff and SNC Lavalin Inc. in the court of Queens Bench in Alberta.

The report will first summarize all the cases and compare them based on decision. The lessons learnt by both the employer and the employee will be highlighted.

Summary of Glover versus Lavalin Inc

In the Glover versus Lavalin Inc. (1998) in the court of Queens bench at Alberta, two pertinent issues that call for ventilation feature prominently.

A number of questions are asked whether it is notable that Glover had been constructively dismissed without due notification and without due cause just after succumbing to fateful layoff that was subsequently extended. Of concern is whether Glover did resign when he turned down the extension of the layoff by Lavalin Inc.

It is known that Glover has worked for myriad companies for the past two decades in the capacity of a safety supervisor where he initiated preparation and implementation of construction site safety programs.

This thus implies that all the employs who worked at the construction site entrusted him with their safety. For this period, Glover services were contractual because he worked for a specific period of time on specific projects.

In 1994, Glover was contracted albeit orally by the Plaintiff to work as a safety supervisor in the latters project in Trinidad. This oral agreement was formalized in a letter dated 30^th August 1994. This letter dictated terms of engagement between Glover, the Plaintiff and the defendant.

It was some form of offer of employment. Glover accepted this on the 31^st day of August 1994. Glover was to be paid an annual salary of 60000 dollars termed by the contract as home base salary. The contract was to run for two years effective 5^th September 1994.

Glover reported to work in Trinidad on 5^th September, 1994. On 7^th of September 1994 Glover was given a deployment policy by the Lavalin Inc. the policy extensively captured aspects of the terms of Glovers international assignment.

Some contents of the deployment policy were alien to the dictates of the letter of 30^th August 1994 with respect to salary of the plaintiff which was increased to 67 500 dollars. The reasons advanced were that the working weeks in Trinidad were longer.

Other than salary, terms of Foreign Service allowance, income tax benefits, rest and relaxation leave were later introduced. Quite outstanding was the conditions under which Glovers could be returned to Calgary.

Clause 17 of the policy dictated that the contract between Glover and Lavalin Inc. shall stand terminated when the former succumb to injury or illness as to interfere with his ability to perform duties assigned to him. This will consequently result into him being taken back to Canada.

Moreover, when the client feels like the employee should be removed or replaced for reasons best known to him, or if through formal performance assessment by the Project Director, the conduct or quality of work of the employee is found to be unsatisfactory, his return to his home base in Canada would be the ultimate thing to do.

A representative of Lavalin Inc. approved this Deployment policy. Glover in return made some handwritten modification to this deployment policy which was not initialed by one A.B. McArthur.

Glover submitted the letter of assignment of agreement together with the deployment policy to the defendant on 6^th February 1995. The letter of assignment of agreement was in the affirmative that Glovers salary would be 67 500 dollars and that the contract was to run for 19 months effective 5^th September 1994.

Other than the above mentioned contents of letter of assignment of agreement, it was assertive that changes made on it have to be signed and dated by both the concerned parties and then sent. This was supposed to conform to the requirements of section 20.0 of the deployment policy.

When Glover came to Trinidad he was supervised by the companys resident construction manager Des Rees. During his formative stages at Lavalin Inc., Rees was replaced by Jim Aitken as Glovers supervisor. They had coincidentally met in 1991, when he was working on construction project Alberta.

Aitkin and Glover did not get along between February and April 1995 because they held divergent views pertaining to how Glover should do his work.

When Glover was due for his rest and relaxation leave Aitken did inform him that Petronin does not need his services and he should never bother himself coming back to Trinidad after the leave.

He was instructed to report to Terry Waters, a construction manager at SNC Lavalin Inc. Calgary office on 19^th April 1995 for reassignment. Nobody at Lavalin Inc. told him that his services had been terminated. Moreover, he was never subjected to formal performance assessment.

Glover returned to Calgary and did as he was advised to do. He was given three letters by Walters. One of these letters confirmed that Glover had indeed been removed from Petronin project in accordance with clause 17 of the deployment policy.

Another letter put Glover into temporary layoff for two moths with some benefits but without salary. Temporary layoff was to commence on 22^nd April 1995. This coincided with the day when Glovers rest and relaxation leave ended. Glover unsuccessfully sought for employment during this period of layoff.

The plaintiff was informed about the possibility of extension of layoff on 22^nd June 1995 by Walters when the prior layoff was just about to expire.

The plaintiff had previously been informed by the personnel manager of SNC Lavalin Inc. in Montreal about the possibility of assigning him in a construction work in Libya as early as July 1995 just before the issue of extension of layoff was mooted.

Walters was clearly aware about the availability of this Libyan assignment when he was asking Glovers whether he objected to extension of his layoff. Glovers evidence in regard to this request can be contested as it is so conflicting.

He is so ambivalent in the way he gives responses during cross examination and at one time alludes to may be having said yes to Walters. The defendant subsequently sent a letter dated 22^nd April 1995 to Glover to confirm their previous day oral agreement to extension of temporary lay off.

The plaintiff was expected to sign the letter as a manifestation of his oral agreement. A copy of the letter was supposed to be returned to Waters.

However, the plaintiff never signed the letter but instead with the help of his counsel told the defendant that he objected to extension of the layoff. He reiterated that his employment had been terminated without due cause from 19^th April 1995.

Waters again asked Glover on 28^th June 1995 whether he was still interested in the Libyan job. He was categorical that he was not interested in working anymore for the defendant. The defendant took Glovers sentiments as a gesture to having resigned.

The plaintiff holds that the defendant contravened the deployment policy and letter of assignment agreement by putting him on temporary layoff. He says that he ought to have been removed only and if he was sick, injured, or doing unsatisfactory work as stipulated in chapter 17 of deployment policy.

The defendant, according to him, breached the deployment policy and assignment agreement by unilaterally dismissing him. He reiterates that subjecting him to temporary layoff was tantamount to constructive dismissal hence a unilateral change in terms of employment contract.

The plaintiff argues that he never resigned as alleged because he had already been constructively dismissed by the defendant. Furthermore he turns down the offer for extension of temporary layoff.

Lavalin Inc. holds that the original employment contract that was given to the plaintiff was meant for people who were being hired indefinitely which were not the case with Glover if at all the deployment policy and letter of Assignment agreement was only meant to govern the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant.

The defendant adds that termination of plaintiffs services was consistent with the clause 17 0f the deployment policy. By the plaintiff accepting to go on temporary layoff, he agreed that his services had been terminated.

The defendant argued that extension of temporary layoff was necessitated by both parties resolve to modify their contractual relationship. He alleges that the agreement between him and the plaintiff stood terminated when the plaintiff decided to resign.

Case decision

The letter dated 30^th August 1994 confirmed the oral employment. The letter basically governed the relationship between Glover and Lavalin Inc. the letter dictates that the plaintiff could only be dismissed due to economic reasons after being given notice of termination of his payment.

The clause banishes the plaintiff to permanent termination of his services if there is no work to be done. Coming into play of assignment of agreement implies terms of agreement are no longer governed by the letter of 30^th August 1994.

There are no express provisions in the letter of assignment agreement and the deployment policy that allows for temporary lay off if at all clause 17 only provides for plaintiffs return to his home base. This cannot be mistaken to mean temporary layoff as it only spells out conditions under which the plaintiff can removed from a project.

The clause does not say that upon return to home base the employee will not be paid. The defendant has no contractual right to layoff Glover temporarily.

When the original agreement was signed on 31^st August 1994, the plaintiff was not told that while working in the foreign country he may be returned to his home base on temporary layoff. The plaintiff did not anticipate or expected such a thing to happen for he has not gone through such experience in his working career.

If the defendant wanted to layoff his employees temporarily the contract should have expressly stated this. He therefore has no right to layoff employees temporarily.

The plaintiff cannot argue that he has been constructively dismissed for he accepted the temporary layoff and its extensions. If he objected to going for temporary layoff he would be successful in his petition.

This case is not similar to the case studies that have been advanced because the plaintiff obliged to terms of temporary layoff validating the modification of employment agreement. Because the plaintiff was on temporary layoff, he knew that the assignment agreement did not apply.

This is evidenced by his notifying the defendant that he was wrongly being paid Foreign Service allowance. Nothing shows that Waters bulldozed Glover into accepting temporary layoff. Nothing can show that the plaintiff was ignorant about the prevailing circumstances.

The plaintiff was therefore not coerced into accepting whatever he was offered. The plaintiff voluntarily accepted the temporary layoff and its extension and therefore has no reason to complain that he was constructively dismissed.

By resigning his position on June 1995 he is not entitled to any damages since his claim has failed. However, because the plaintiff was hired specifically for Petronin Project, on fixed term contract, he is therefore entitled to the value of the remainder of the assignment agreement.

Assertion by the defendant that court cannot rely on the plaintiffs testimony because he is not credible can be far fetched had been that the plaintiff had not accepted temporary layoff status. The defendants action denied him the opportunity of enjoying the full benefit of the contract.

Determination of this is not hinged on the plaintiffs testimony. If it can be proved that the plaintiff was constructively dismissed, the plaintiff stands to be paid for damages because the breach has been proven.

Summary of Bravo v. Etobicoke Limited

In Bravo versus Etobicoke Limited (2005) in superior court of justice, Bravo, a 38 year old welder who has worked for six years and four months sues his employer for having wrongfully dismissed him. The plaintiff first worked for the defendant as a general laborer and then a welder.

He could do both aluminum and steel welding. Up to when he was dismissed, he had not received any written warning or suspension. He was dismissed for crimes he is thought to have committed between Thursday or Friday of 19^th and 20^th September, 2002.

The plaintiff is uncertain about these dates. In his testimony the plaintiff says that he failed to report to work after the incidences had happened because his wife had an appointment. After reporting to work he had some altercations with Mr. Simones after he had yelled at him, this prompted him to yell back at him.

Mr. Simones on his part intimated that he saw the plaintiff at 8.20 am in a position he had initially seen him before. The plaintiff was supposed to be working by 8.05 and this prompted him to ask the plaintiff whatever was wrong and what he needed.

The plaintiff is reported to have insulted Mr. Simones and reminded him that he was not his boss. He denied having insulted the plaintiff even after he had insulted him. He admitted having raised his voice. After effortless attempts to talk to Mr. Schiavi by radio, he finally got to see him.

Mt Schiavi intimated to Simones after taking to the plaintiff that the plaintiff had taken clothes for cleaning. Schiavi decided not to proceed with the case because he felt there must have been some misunderstanding.

The plaintiff again crossed with Schiavi during coffee brake where he said next time Schiavi messed up with him he will take matters into his own hands. During the plaintiffs testimony, he denied ever threatening Schiavi and said that by taking matters into his own hands he implied calling the police.

He reiterated that he had initially complained to Mr. Joseph about the harassment by the Simones brothers. The plaintiff alluded to Mr. John Brasil the Chief Operating Manager having called him to a meeting on Wednesday where he was asked about the exchange.

He said that he had gone to change his clothes after spilling water when Simones attacked and swore at him. In the plaintiffs testimony, he said that Brasil was not interested in hearing his problems with Simones.

Brasil, Joseph and Schiavi said that the plaintiff took either screws or bolts home for his personal use. Plaintiff held that Simones was discriminative in the manner he talked to him. The plaintiff maintained that he was dismissed on Thursday contrary to a popular belief by Brasil and Joseph that it was indeed a Friday.

Case decision

The letter of his dismissal stated that he was dismissed because of taking company property without permission and using threatening and vulgar language. Despite all these the plaintiff was presented with a six week pay cheque consistent with employment standards legislation.

The plaintiff did not however ask for neither did he receive a reference letter hence difficulty with finding another job. The plaintiff was denied employment insurance benefits by the defendant.

In McKinley v. B.C. Tel (2001), 200 D.L.R. (4th) 385 dishonestly provided a fertile ground for dismissal for cause. An employees services in a company can be terminated if he is found to have committed serious fraud or engaged in misappropriation.

The plaintiffs version of events is not credible since he denies having taken anything and later admits having taken two screws. Moreover the plaintiff did not ask for permission to live his work area.

The plaintiff took the bolts for his personal use without express permission from his supervisor in contravention of the company policy despite acknowledging that he was familiar with company policy.

By refusing to be questioned by Mr. Simones it is a clear sign that he disrespected him. Using foul language shows that he contravened the company rules which outlaws shouting at your superiors.

However, given that this was the first misconduct by the plaintiff, summary dismissal was not warranted as it was disproportionate to the misconduct hence no cause for dismissal. The plaintiff should have been entitled to reasonable notice.

Because of allegation that the plaintiff took the company property could be proved and because the defendant failed to initiate investigation, Mr. Brasil had reasonable grounds for dismissing the plaintiff.

The issue of bad faith or unfair dealing is dispelled when the defendant pays the plaintiff six week wages for dismissal.

Summary of Vrana v. Procor Limited

In Vrana versus Procor Limited (2004) in the court of appeal of Alberta, Vrana claims to have been wrongfully dismissed two days before the 60^th consecutive day of temporary layoff.

The Judge however holds that Vrana was not constructively dismissed because the code allows employers to layoff their employees albeit temporarily without terminating the employment relationship until expiry of 60 days after the lay off.

Claim for wrongful dismissal implies that Vrana had repudiated the terms of his employment with Procor. Trial judge held that were it that Vrana had been wrongfully dismissed 10 months would be appropriate notice period.

Trial judge contend that common law was altered by ss. 62, 63(1) and 64(1) of the code an interpretation that Vrana dissents.

Case decision

The arguments that have been elicited in this appeal focuses on relationship between sections 62, 63, and 64 of the code on one hand and section 3 on the other. The issue cannot be definitively resolved.

This appeal should be allowed on basis of content of Procors notice of temporary layoff based on the fundamental principle of statutory interpretation. The code preamble only sets forth its legislative objectives.

The objectives particularly emphasize importance of employment legislation. Of much importance is the recognition of salutary effect of open communication between employer and employee and their responsibility in regards to respect to their rights and obligations.

Section 62 of the code allows for employee temporary layoff without terminating employment relationship up to 60 day period when the employment terminates. The employer therefore is under no obligation to pay the employee any termination due up to when the 60 day period expires.

These provisions do not call for the employees consent. The employee is left in desperate situation because he is not sure when the layoff will ever end and cannot search for other sources of income until the expiry of 60 day period. These provisions put the employees life in legal and economic hold.

To be fair to the employee the employer should give a notice of impending temporary layoff. The notice should contain effective date of commencement of the layoff and relevant sections of the code that outline the effect of the layoff.

This will ward off misunderstanding between employers and employees pursuant to their rights and obligations. In this case a notice was not given and this cannot be treated as a harmless error.

Situation is then worsened by the mere fact that Procor did not recall employees who had been layoff hence a cause for suing Procor for constructive dismissal. The appeal should be allowed on grounds that Procor never provided the required notice. The damages set out by the trial judge should therefore be paid to Vrana.

Summary of Turner v. Uniglobe travel

In Turner versus Uniglobe travel (2005) in Court of Queens Bench Alberta, the Plaintiff-Turner acknowledges having received Policies and Procedures Manual from Uniglobe travel and accepted it terms that set out conditions of her employment.

He accepts contents of paragraph 34 in entirety but dissents some of the provisions of paragraph 35 as not applicable hence not constituting alterations to his conditions of his employment as she was not a new employee.

Uniglobes Policies and Procedures Manual does not specifically address issues relating to temporary layoff. The manual does not set provision of ss. 62, 63, and 64 of the employment code of Alberta.

In Vranas case in the Alberta Court of Appeal it was concluded that no notice was given despite the fact that it should have been given. It therefore follows that no notice was given to Turner despite the fact that he ought to have been given.

Turners letter to Beth shows that she misrepresented Beths letter that they had indeed terminated her employment. Beth had sole responsibility of explaining to Turner what was happening. The defendant had the obligation of writing a second letter to plaintiff to clear the misunderstanding.

Case decision

The defendant had clear opportunity to make appropriate notice on receipt of Laundrys letter dated October 18^th. If employee, employer relationship was to be based on sections 62, 63, and 64 of the code the defendants should have informed plaintiff about that.

The recall letter also provided opportunity where the defendant should have given the plaintiff notice of impending temporary layoff.

The word fair and equitable in the preamble of the code, demands fair and equitable resolution of issues arising from terms and conditions of employment. There is nothing in the recall letter that stipulates that there was open and honest communication.

A version of policy manual cannot be a contract hence cannot be relied. The defendant did not give the plaintiff 8 weeks notice hence repudiation of contract.

Comparison of the cases based on decision

In Turner v. Uniglobe Travel just like in Vrana v. Procor Limited the court finds that the defendants subjected the plaintiffs to temporary layoff without due notice as stipulated in the preamble of the code and therefore awarded the plaintiff damages.

However, in Bravo versus Etobicoke Limited there is reasonable ground for dismissal of the plaintiff as he is found to have engaged in theft of company property and use of vulgar language against the company officers in breach of the company policies.

Nevertheless, his instantaneous dismissal was unwarranted as it is his first time to do such thing. He should have been given notice instead of immediate dismissal. However, failure by the defendant to initiate investigation was so grave.

In Glover v. Lavalin Inc., the plaintiff was not awarded damages because by refusing to sign for extension of temporary layoff he was aware of what was going on hence stood dismissed. All the four cases touch on how employees who are under temporary layoff should be treated.

Lessons learnt as employee and employer

Issues pertaining to contract should be looked at critically because they can make an employee or employer suffer untold losses.

Parties should not just take to signing before knowing what they are signing against. If some issues are not clear it is advisable that lawyers services are involved.

While drafting contracts, employers should ensure that they conform to existing codes. Issues relating to dismissal of employees, termination of contracts, and laying off of workers should be treated with caution as this can make a company pay colossal amounts of money in damages to affected employees.

Constant communication between employer and employee is also very healthy.

Advices Given To both Employee and Employer as HR Manager

An employee should understand what an employment contract requires of him before signing the dotted lines because after signing the contract it is expected of him or her to strictly follow the dictates of the contract.

Employees should also be conversant with the legislations that surround contractual laws because ignorance is not defense against law. They should extensively interrogate the content of the contract so that their actions are consistent with it. They are also supposed to know their rights and responsibilities.

Employers should also make it a point of respecting the contract and should know their rights and responsibilities against those of the employees.

No employee should be dismissed when their dismissal is not premised in existing law as this may cost a company a fortune in terms of legal suits by employees. When an employee has to go for temporary layoff they have to be given due notice as premised in contractual laws and codes.

Reference List

Bravo v. Etobicoke Limited, CanLII 18276 (ON SC) (2005)

Glover v. Lavalin Inc., ABQB 752 (1998)

Turner v. Uniglobe travel, ABQB 513 (2005)

Vrana v. Procor Limited, ABCA 126 (2004)

Legal changes can profoundly change the work of managers who have to take many decisions that have significant implications for their organizations. These professionals should know whether their actions comply with existing laws. More importantly, these people need to know how to protect the interest of their companies in the court.

In addition to that, employees should make sure that their rights are not violated. Therefore, it is important to learn more about the application of employment law. These questions can be better discussed by examining online resources that provide information about legal aspects of managerial work.

At first, this question can be discussed from the perspective of employees who are often disempowered by the senior managers. For instance, some people do not ask for extra compensation when they work overtime. In their opinion, such a request can lead to the dissatisfaction of the management.

The main issue is that an employee is obliged to provide extra reimbursement to a worker. In particular, the pay rate should be at least one and one-half times the regular rate (H. G. 2013). This is a requirement which is included in the Fair Labor Standards Act (H. G. 2013).

Additionally, some of the employees do not know that they can be discriminated by the management on the basis of gender, race, or ethnicity. For instance, people, who are older than forty, can be rejected as candidates for employment. The main problem is that such a policy contradicts employment legislation adopted in the United States. These examples show that workers can benefit from the knowledge of employment legislation.

Moreover, the knowledge of law is vital for managers and employees. For instance, managers of a company have a right to resist the unionization of workers. Moreover, they are not obliged to comply with the demands of trade unions (The United States Department of Labor, 2013).

The managers of private firms have to find ways of making their organizations more sustainable. Cost-reduction is one of the strategies that they can adopt. Therefore, they need to know how to justify their decisions from a legal perspective. This is one of the aspects that can be identified.

Furthermore, the owners of small businesses should know when it is legal for them to terminate an employee. Similarly, the managers of these organizations should know how to avoid lawsuits related to discrimination. In many cases, the firms that are accused of this behavior can be simply blackmailed by the candidates or employees. Furthermore, managers or entrepreneurs should know what kind of steps they should take while hiring workers.

For instance, they should make sure that a person is eligible for the work in the United States (U.S. Small Business Administration, n. d.). Moreover, managers should clearly inform employees about their rights and duties (U.S. Small Business Administration, n. d.). This step is critical for avoiding possible legal conflicts. To a great extent, these precautions can help small business avoid many pitfalls. These cases suggest that managers should know how to protect the peculiarities of labor legislation in order to protect their interests.

Overall, the knowledge of employment legislation is critical for the management and employees. These stakeholders should know how to defend their rights. In particular, managers should know how to protect the interests of their firms. In turn, workers should receive proper compensation for their efforts.

Reference List

H.G. (2013). Employment Law  Guide to Labor Law. Web.

The United States Department of Labor. (2013). Summary of the Major Laws of the Department of Labor. Web.

U.S. Small Business Administration. Hire Your First Employee. Web.

The tattoo practice is an ancient phenomenon, practiced around the world. The precise antiquity of tattoo is unknown, although tattooing has been practiced throughout human existence. According to the social and epidemiological survey research, this topic is important because of its pervasiveness of body art, especially in western societies Laumann and Derick (2006) This research estimated that, in 2004, one-quarter of the United States adult population had a tattoo. As stated in a survey conducted by Pew Research Center (2010) 38 percent of 18 to 29-year-old Americans have a tattoo, and 30 percent of those tattoos are visible. Although, tattoos are body art and some employees are prejudiced because of it, the American constitution protects the employees and therefore employees should not be discriminated against because of body art.

Tattoos are considered as art by artists and other individuals worldwide, even though job applicants and employees suffer in the labor market because of their body art. Most employees are forbidden to exhibit their tattoos. Some customers or even colleagues treat these employees differently, although presently tattoos have a meaning behind them. This form of art is still being seen as negative. Tattoos are often associated with carrying weapons, being part of a gang, anger issues or the usage of substance and decreased honesty, generosity, and intelligence. A job applicant with tattoos can be seen as someone who is part of a gang and therefore, many companies are asking for a certificate of good conduct. Having a tattoo does not mean you are part of something negative, most of the time there is an emotional reason behind it, therefore no one should be treated differently because of this.

In the first and fourteenth amendment of the American constitution, there is protection against discrimination of employees. The first amendment protects against religious and free speech, there are federal and state law protections against employment discrimination based on race, sex, religion, and disabilities. In the fourteenth amendment, there is equal protection and due process. Based on the American constitution, an employee has the right to free speech which is expressed on the body. Firstly, because an employee does not want to hide their tattoo, they should not be fired. Therefore, these need to be covered. Secondly, it depends on where the tattoo is placed on which body part, an employee of a bank cannot have a neck tattoo, and have it uncovered. It depends on the kind of work you have. There are more serious workplaces and other places, for example, a pub or coffee shop which are places where the customers are less worried about the image of an employee. Based on the American constitution there should be no kind of discrimination against employees, thus, the American constitution protects the employees with or without tattoos.

To conclude, tattoos can have a negative or a positive impact on others, thus this does not mean that the meaning of a tattoo is negative. Despite all the discrimination of customers and coworkers in the workplace, this has no reason to fire an employee. Although the American constitution protects an employee, it is up to the employee to acknowledge if her or his tattoo must be covered depending on the workplace.

A career is significant for each individual because of numerous advantages. A decent and stable career, for example, gives stability and genuine feelings of serenity throughout everyday life. Being guaranteed a stable income flow, we are spared a lot of stress and uncertainties that life brings in its wake without a career. Subsequently, individuals continually searching for a decent and stable career to work for the majority time of life, or even a good job, and keeping up it for quite a while. That is the reason, as distinct from Labour Law, the government enacted Employment Law to protect the jobs of citizens. The law has changed and adjusted to the monetary development around the globe. It has included new sections, rules and terminology to make it more relevant and practical to enforces and punishes those who break the law. In this paper, I will examinie the Canadian Employment Law by analyzing the case study of Haseeb v. Imperial Oil Limited in 2019.

The case is about an international student at McGill University who applied for an engineering job that would start after graduation in his final semester – Muhammad Haseeb. At that time, he was an international student with a student visa. Upon graduation, he would be eligible for a three-year ‘postgraduate work permit’ (PGWP) that would allow him to work full-time, anywhere, with any employer in Canada. He expected that within three years he would gain permanent residency status.

On the other side, the Imperial Oil Limited, the company Mr. Haseeb was applied for, required graduate engineers to have permanent residency or Canadian citizenship and asked a number of questions throughout the application procedure regarding whether the applicant was eligible to work on a permanent basis in Canada, to which he answered ‘Yes’ repeatedly. He has been successful in the multi-step selection process of Imperial Oil and has been offered a job, subject to verification of citizenship documentary or permanent residency. The offer was canceled when he was unable to provide such proof (Zacks, 2018). According to Woloshyn (2019), Mr. Haseeb was Imperial Oil’s top-ranked candidate when he applied for a position in 2014, however, when the company learned that he was neither a Canadian citizen nor a permanent resident, they rescinded their job offer to him and he later brought a human right claim against them.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (Tribunal) found that Imperial Oil had breached the human rights of Haseeb by discriminating against him based on his citizenship status. According to the Canadian Human Rights Act (Government of Canada, 2019), every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination or harassment because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability. While the Code does not contain a definition of citizenship, the Tribunal determined that the Code contemplated that discrimination would arise where there existed a “requirement or consideration that distinguished among individuals on the basis of either “Canadian citizenship”, “permanent residency” status or “domicile in Canada with intention to obtain citizenship”.” Because of this finding, the Tribunal concluded that hiring practices and interview screening processes of classifying individuals as “eligible” and “ineligible” based on the ability to work in Canada on a “permanent basis” is discriminatory.

Therefore, despite his dishonesty, Mr. Haseeb supposed to be treated as a regular applicant without discrimination of his citizenship status. In the step of discovering the remedy he entitled to from Imperial as a result of the company’s human rights violations, the Tribunal applied this general remedial principle: “Mr. Haseeb should be put in the position he would have been in had there been no violation of his human rights” (Woloshyn, 2019). On the off chance that Mr. Haseeb was to be placed in the position in which he would have been if Imperial Oil had not asked him any discriminatory questions, he would not have lied, and therefore he would have been hired, in light of his top-ranking and the fact that the company actually offered him a job.

According to the evidence, if Mr. Haseeb had been recruited by Imperial Oil, he would have been employed by them from 30 March 2015 until 3 May 2019, when he left his job with Deloitte to pursue other opportunities, minus the 10-month duration of unpaid absence, it would be a period of approximately 39 months, which equates to more than three years. In order to calculate his lost income for this period, the Tribunal looked at what he did at Deloitte compared to the starting salary that Imperial Oil offered plus the average annual wage increases that the three engineers that Imperial Oil actually hired received (Woloshyn, 2019). Imperial Oil’s total compensation owed Mr. Haseeb for loss of income would be more than 100,000 dollars. Moreover, add to that the $15,000 given him by the Tribunal as compensation for “injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect,” plus pre-judgment interest of Imperial Oil for the amount of $4,000, it ended up costing them more than $120,000 for an employee they never actually employed on August 23, 2019.

The Employment Law was created as protection for both employer and employee with their rights and responsibilities. Employment Law functions as acts that cover your basic employment rights such as working hours, minimum wages, sick days, leave of absence, maternity leave, vacation and severance provisions, and so on. Furthermore, The Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) forbids discrimination based on gender, race, ethnicity, age, and several other reasons. In the same area of discrimination, another piece of legislation – Employment Equity Act (EEA) was added under the Department of Justice Canada to protect the rights of four “designated groups” in particular: women, people with disabilities, Aboriginal people, and visible minorities (Swartz, n.d.). On the other hand, by profoundly understanding the Employment Law, employers will able to avoid lawsuits, fines, and legal expenses in the basics of unaware discrimination or other grounds. The Employment Law has been updated consistently to be more relevant to nowadays situations. Overall, with the existence of the Employment Laws, both employer and employee will be benefited from the high level of health and safety in the work environment, knowing that stability, discrimination-free and sexual harassment-free are maintained. As employees, the acts ensure that hiring processes, dismissal processes, and their workplace as a whole, are fair for every individual while employers will be profited from high-quality production and loyalty from their employees.

In conclusion, Canadian Employment Law has been incredibly enhanced to become more applicable to these days. After the case of Haseeb, Imperial Oil has eliminated the requirement of the candidate is “eligible to work on a permanent basis”, which opens up more chances for international students and workers as well as more talented from the wider variety of nations. With support from the Employment Law, it makes workers and laborers feel more secure and happy to get to work as well as eliminates the stressful working environment. However, there are still some circumstances that might not be covered by the Canadian Employment Law yet, which lead to changes in the law in the future that might be getting better or worse off.

Right-to-Work Law and Its Implications for Labour Legislation in CanadaIntroductionFor the last few years, a major showdown has been shaping up between the progressive sections of Canada, which have always been associated with the trade union movement and social democracy, and the rightist sections which promote anti-unionism. While the former groups seek to consolidate the labor organizations, the latter groups aim at eliminating the trade union rights. People like me think that trade unions are working for the collective good. But others think that they are not conducive for individual worker’s liberty. While the former view emphasizes that trade unions must be consolidated and strengthened for the collective good of all employees, the latter view holds that trade unions must be destabilized and weakened for the good of individual worker preferring not to join or pay dues to the union.

This confrontation centers on the concept of right-to-work, which is currently being discussed and debated widely. In order to have a good understanding of the issue, we need to know about the concept of right-to-work, know what both the sides (for and against) say about it and understand its implications for Canada. What is Right-toWork? There are some misconceptions about the term ‘Right to Work’ in the popular understanding.

The term sounds positive as if it endows or empowers the working masses with a right. However, it is a misnomer that has little to do with the right of an individual to get gainful employment, as it might imply in common sense. A right-to-work law does not ensure anyone a job, protect against unfair firing, secure equitable wages, or guarantee decent working conditions. There are debates and controversies about it. Many of the organized workers are opposed to it. The Context of Human Rights In the human rights context, the phrase ‘right to work’ as such is a fundamental human right emphasizing that human beings have a right to engage in productive employment. This right is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, according to which everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

The Context of Labour Law, On the other hand, the ‘right to work law’, which is currently under debate in the context of labor legislation, is a statute that prohibits union security agreements between employers and unions. Such union security clauses govern the extent to which an established union can require employees’ membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment, either before or after being employed. When such legislation is in implementation, employees can opt out of union membership and pay for the benefits of union representation they receive. While unions are required to fairly represent all the employees covered by a particular collective bargaining agreement, the right to work law apparently takes away the right of labor and management to freely negotiate a union security clause. To differentiate the term in the labor law context from that of human rights, the phrase is generally hyphenated as ‘right-to-work’, which often entails with the word ‘law’ Thus, it is normally referred as ‘right-to-work law’.What the Proponents SayProponents, of right-to-work laws, many of whom claim to be libertarians, argue that right-to-work law will free the individual worker from the clutches of union and a right-to-work environment will help to attract industry and encourage economic development.

They argue that the demands of unions for higher wages and benefits are detrimental to the economy and employers prefer to ship jobs to areas of cheap labor, where non-unionized workers are willing to work for low wages. The views of the proponents in Canada are concisely summarized by Lammam and MacIntyre (2014). Joining a union and paying full dues can be made a condition for employment. If someone wants a particular job, they have no choice but to join a union and pay dues. Unions can be less responsive to their membership since members don’t have the option to leave the union. Unions often engage in political activities outside their primary role as contract negotiators for their members. Dues paid by union members can be used for activities unrelated to representing members. Right-to-Work states enjoy increased economic growth, employment, and in-migration from other states. Non-Right-to-Work states will be at a competitive disadvantage in attracting manufacturing investment and that will result in fewer employment opportunities (Lammam and MacIntyre, 2014). What the Opponents according to the opponents of right-to-work laws, many of whom are unionists, such laws make it difficult for unions to organize since they make it illegal to require employees to pay union dues as a condition of employment. Such laws undermine union strength and rights to collective bargaining, through which improved wages and benefits for employees are achieved. Thus they will contribute to lower wages and greater income disparity. As stated by the Bureau of Labour Education (2011), a right-to-work law prohibits employers and employees from negotiating a union security clause. Collective bargaining contracts cannot require a worker to join a union. Hence there is no ‘forced unionism’ in free-bargaining states.

A union cannot require an ‘objector’ non-member to pay for any union activities unrelated to collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment. Employees who belong to unions receive better wages, benefits, and working conditions than non-union employees. Over time, a right-to-work law is likely to undermine the wage and benefit gains, and prevent adequate representation for workers. States with right-to-work laws were actually worse off in terms of their state’s Gross State Product per capita (GSP). They tended to experience slower growth after adopting right-to-work legislation. 11 out of 22 right-to-work states have poverty rates over 15%, whereas only 6 out of 28 free-bargaining states have poverty rates over 15%. The average poverty rate for the former states is 15% whereas for the latter states is 12.8%.

In right-to-work states, unions are obligated to represent the interests of all members of the bargaining unit but have no power to collect from individual members the dues that they require to finance union activities. The non-members become ‘free riders’ (not paying, but benefiting). This will weaken the bargaining power of the unions. Implications for Canadian a deeply concerned voice, Black and Silver (2012, para 1) state:“A major confrontation is shaping up between progressive elements of Canadian society associated with the trade union movement and social democracy, and anti-union organizations (many of them inspired and guided by the National Right-to-Work Committee based in Virginia) that are seeking to eliminate the institutional arrangements that protect trade union rights and secure their role in the life of Canada. This conflict involves a clash over fundamental values.

At stake is the very nature of Canadian society—the kind of society we bequeath to future generations.” In contrast, Lammam and MacIntyre (2014, last para) state: “Unless Ontario becomes a right-to-work state, the province will continue to be at a competitive disadvantage for attracting manufacturing investment. That could mean fewer jobs for Ontarians”. The Rand Formula is a provision in many collective agreements, which requires employers to deduct union dues from all employees in the bargaining unit and remit them to the union. It takes its name from Chief Justice Ivan Rand of the Supreme Court of Canada, who included the provision in his arbitration of a dispute between Ford and the United Auto Workers in 1945. The Chief Justice believed that unions were obliged to look after the interests of all employees, and must, therefore, have the resources required to discharge this obligation.

Thus, those who benefit from the efforts of the union should pay their dues, even if they choose not to be members of the union (Black and Silver, 2012). Lynk (2002) quotes the reviewing of the Canada Labour Code by the Federal Task Force in 1996, which observes: ‘Canadian trade unions exhibit a high level of internal democracy and genuinely represent the interests and wishes of their membership’. He further adds that Canadian labor law prohibits trade unions from acting in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith towards any employee, whether a member or not. As for the criticism against unions that they engage in political activities, Lynk (2002) says that it is accepted in Canadian politics and law for a union to act as a political voice of labor. The Canadian unions have acted as pressure groups in support of a wide variety of public policy goals.

The right of unions to spend their funds on other issues of social concern apart from spending for collective bargaining has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1991 (Black and Silver, 2012). The employers and the unions operate in certain social, economic, political and cultural contexts that influence their capacities for collective bargaining. Hence they have a right to spend their funds to act upon these contexts to create a favorable environment for successful collective bargaining. Cowan (2013) observes:“Canadian right-to-work legislation would never resemble American laws anyway. The two nations have very different legal approaches when it comes to unions, both based in legal precedents more than 60 years old. At the heart of American labor law is the 1947 union-restricting Taft-Hartley Act; in Canada, we have the Rand Formula, from 1946, which affirmed unions’ ability to collect dues, even from non-union members. This means any Canadian politician seeking to pass rightto-work laws would not only have to fight a protracted war with every union in Canada but a lengthy legal battle as well.” SummaryAs we have discussed, right-towork must be understood in its legal context and be differentiated from the human rights context. We have seen that opinions are divided over the introduction of the right-to-work law in Canada. Proponents of the right-to-work law who mostly claim to be libertarians argue that unionism curbs individual freedom and hinders industrial growth. But the opponents of the right-to-work law argue that this law intends to curb the collective voice of employees by weakening the unions.

An individual employee cannot have equal footing with the employing organization to bargain regarding his / her working conditions. Unionized employees receive better wages, benefits and working conditions compared to the non-union employees. The opponents of this law have shown with data that the non-right-towork states are better off in terms of poverty and economic growth. Strengthened by the Rand formula, Canadian unions have exhibited a high level of internal democracy and responsibility not only for their members but also for the non-members as well as for the whole society by giving a voice for major social issues. The employers and the unions operate in certain social, economic, political and cultural contexts that influence their capacities for collective bargaining. Hence the unions have a right to spend their funds to act upon these contexts to create a favorable environment for successful collective bargaining. Vibrant unions are a central part of building a better world. If right-to-work laws are enacted in Canada, they are likely to ruin the gains that have been won through the use of the Rand Formula.

This essay comprises in extent the variant kind of relationships that may be found in the organisations. Particularly, the contrasts in regulation and common law between a worker, an employee and independent contractors are advised and the variant kind of agreement that command the employment relationship are protected.

Aylott (2018) stated that ‘’Employment law is meant to protect and to support employers to improve their relationship with their employees and to gain further competitive advantage.’’

Employment Status determines the rights and obligations a worker might possess. Employment Status is an agreement under which a worker is engaged to perform for an employer. Emir (2016) asserts there is myriad of reasons for ‘’stressing the importance’’ of this distinction between a contract of service and a contract for services due to tax, liability, health and safety regards. It is an important matter because if a worker is misclassified there could be risks of financial liability on the part of the employer.

Firstly, in reference to Section 295(1) of the 1992 Act and s 230(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act 1992, the law clearly indicates that an ‘‘employee is an individual who has entered into or works under a contract of employment’’ Employees are an inside member of an organisation, a general agent of a firm. It is salient to establish the distinction between an employee and an independent contractor as an employee is entitled to any rights provided by the Employment Rights Act 1996. Moreover, the employment contract is salient as it provides employees with enough information on the terms and conditions of their employment. For instance, within the employment contract, important details will be written regarding, job description and job duties in which the worker and the employee will be doing, the location where they will be working could also be indicated, also pension scheme could be cited in it as well as how much they will be remunerated (Nairns, 2011, p.109). Furthermore, the written employment contract should also include the names of the employee and employer, the date of the start of the employment, the number of hours of work the worker would be entitled to achieve, terms and conditions relating to payments given incapacitated due to injury and sickness, holiday pay, etc.

Secondly, in reference to Section 296(1) a worker is said to be ‘an individual who works under a contract of employment, or under any other contract whereby the worker undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services for another party to the contract who is not a professional client of his’. Having said that, a worker occurs to have fewer rights than an employee, however, the worker has more legal rights than an independent contractor (Daniels, 2019, p.43). Daniels (2019, p.46) asserts that the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) has set out rights in order for all employees who continually works for an employer for a minimum period of one month to be eligible to receive a written statement of initial employment particulars, no later than two months of commencing employment.

Thirdly, an independent contractor is a third-party business contracted by the firm. It could also be someone who is in the business for himself or herself, someone who will try to get clients and managing their expenses. In some situation, the independent contractor does not depend on any party but itself, in short, some could see an independent contractor as a business person. By contrast, an employee works for an organisation and are provided of an employment contract which includes fixed working hours and duties. Independent contractor has the power to negotiate and decide the price of the work when to be achieved.

Another key thing to remember is that independent contractors are in the business of their own account and provides duty works under a contract for services. Whilst employees work under a contract of service. Therefore, there are considered to be ‘largely excluded from employment rights’. According to the case Pimlico Plumbers v Smith (2018), performing as a freelance plumber, Smith was classified as a worker since the company Pimlico Plumbers LTD had a strong control over the worker who was required to wear the company’s uniform as well as driving a van with the company’s logo and was given set of hours.

That has been said, it is crystal clear that an employee or worker needs to know what employment status they will be classified to for them to benefit entirely the rights they are entitled to. Although employees have more rights than workers, it is still advantageous for workers to know the employment rights as they also have legal rights which include, the National Minimum Wages, remunerated holiday, payslip as well as eligible to protection against unlawful discrimination and whistleblowing, and they should not be treated unfairly if the worker works part-time. It is vital to be aware of what the individual’s status is, for instance, employees and independent contractors does not possess the same tax status

One of the main reasons why is that employees pay tax under Schedule E and the Pay as You Earn (PAYE) scheme, which means the employer has the responsibilities to deduct the tax from the employee’s pay and needs to transfer into the Inland Revenue (Nairns, 2011, p.111). By contrast to the employee status, the independent contractor’s tax status is pay tax under the schedule D which forbids independent contractors to set off tax against expenses and they may pay tax in arrears as well as paying VAT onto services.

Furthermore, in terms of National Assurance, in comparison to independent contractors paying class 2 and are entirely responsible for the payment of their contribution, employees pay Class 1 which assess on how much they are remunerated. Moreover, contributions in which are deducted by employers who also contribute on the behalf of the employee.

Not to mention, only employees are entitled to make claims in case of unfair dismissal, redundancy pay or maternity pay, which in this case, those rights do not apply to independent contractors and workers. However, few of the legal rights can only arise after two working years such as claiming for unfair dismissal to the tribunal and redundancy pay. Having said that, if employees believe they are not benefiting their full legal rights, due to that employees could eventually take their employers to Employment Tribunal. Most commonly, employees wishing to make claims against their employers will reach out to ACAS (Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service), which consist on advising employees and employers on many different levels of aspects within the workplace and the legislations it follows (ACAS). The reason why workers and employers are reaching to ACAS first is that ACAS would provide the worker or employers who claim to get many rapid outcomes. Likewise, it helps to find ways of conciliation between worker and employer without involving the Employment Tribunal.

Tribunals are indeed the most advantageous platform for legislations to be enforced such as the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 as well as the Working Time Regulations 1998 (House of Commons. A Framework for Modern Employment. 2017 p.13). To avoid challenges in finding out the employment status of the individual, tests have been developed along the years to determine the status of the worker whether they are classified as employee, worker or independent contractor. However, the decision to classify them as such is down to the court and the Employment Tribunal.

Control test, was the only test to exist from the nineteenth century, it comes from the case of Yewens v Noakes (1880). This test takes over the worker by controlling the time the worker spent doing the duty, the duty itself and the given instructions using their skills and expertise. On the other hand, the independent contractor could be hired for one main task and to will be told specifically what to do if recruited, for instance (cleaners, plumbers, etc.).

Integration test, which is also known as the organisation test, which consists on how well the worker integrates into the organisation of the employer (Nairns, 2011, p.113). However, this also reveals that skilled people have control of their work, in that situation employers have no control of the individual so the worker will not be classified as an employee.

Multiple test, the modern approach, is known to be one of the most common test used in the courts today. In doing so, the court is said to observe at every aspect of the relationship as described to employs them to identify the nature of that relationship.

This test was first used in the case of Ready-Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions (1968), which demonstrated the drivers to be independent contractors even though they had ordered from their employers however indications showed the drivers were responsible for maintenance and running costs of the lorries, driver could potentially employ a substitute driver, drivers could own more lorries and they were paying their own tax and NI contributions.

Mutual obligations test could also be used alongside the multiple test by the courts. It is about whether the client or agency are obliged to arrange work, and whether the client is obliged to take it or not. The employment contract will not be given if none of those subjects is identified by the court, in fact, the accord has to be met from both parties.

In expression of legal prospect, employees appreciate more common law employment rights for instance the responsibility to sustain an association of shared belief and assurance, or the current duty of care that all employers owe to all employees. Employers have primary duty under health and safety law than is the case with independent contractors. Employers are lawfully responsible for the actions of their employees while they are at work. This has significance both in health and safety law. However, Emir (2016, p.51) determines employer will not normally be responsible for the wrongful acts (civil wrongs) committed by independent contractors. Employers are lawfully required to provide insurance for themselves against responsibility towards employee. In the absence of a written contract that states otherwise, employers are deemed in law to be the owners of any copyright relating to work carried out by their employers in the course of their employment. This is not the case with independent contractors. An employer owes a duty at common law to take reasonable care for employee safety, whereas these duties do not normally apply with respect to independent contractors.

This obligation incurred by the employer to employees under the health and safety work Act 1974. The regulations made under the Act are more extensive than those owed to independent contractors. Fundamentally, this signify that a independent contractor who is hurt whilst at work possibly unable to seek any damages from the employer and also will be unable to seek industrial injuries aid or sick pay.

To conclude, it is crucial for employers to do their part to prevent legal disputes by knowing the basics of employment law and employment status of the individual. Employees, workers and independent contractors have different legal rights from one another. Many employment safeguarding measures are only reserved for employees, however, there are some which use the broader significance of worker, inclusive of National Minimum Wage ACT 1998 and Working Time Regulations 1998. The character of the common law study used to organise the employment status of workers has empowered employers to efficaciously obviate workers from attaining protective worker rights.

Organisational Culture – The morals and behaviors of staff can have a massive impact on its culture which ultimately affects the employment relationship, especially if that culture is negative. It’s important to build a culture where employees have their job satisfaction and their work happily and at the same time cooperate with the management team. Culture ultimately shapes the employees’ attitude and behaviour towards work.

Management style – an effective management style plays an important role in developing in strong relationships between employers and employees. The line managers contribute to building strong employment relationships by motivating employees, including them in the decision making process, treating them fairly and rewarding them when appropriate. Management showing willingness to tackle matters related to the people they manage in a systematic and careful manner always pays off.

Increase in competition – Competition on the market is a very important factor which influences the relationship between the employers and employees. It varies depending on the industry and market trends. There is also a visible link between the competition on the market and the concept of globalisation. Some companies offer their employees many benefits such as salary sacrifice scheme, private health insurance, generous rewards for good performance and many others so the employees stick with their organisation.

Legislation – Employment Laws affect employee relations in various ways, imposing rules on working time, national minimum wage, trade union recognition, parental leave, unfair dismissal, and equality of employees. In recent years discussion about Brexit has been dominating this space and it will certainly affect the way companies recruit foreign workers and check their immigration status. This process could potentially lead to some difficult discussions situations and as a result challenging relationship between both parties.

• Employee – is someone who works under an employment contract which is a written agreement between them and their employer. Benefits and pay, such as holiday entitlement, usually start on the first day of employment. Additional rights and benefits may be accessed subject to continuous employment, including the right to claim for unfair dismissal and the right to redundancy payments, statutory maternity, paternity and adoption leave, statutory sick pay, TUPE protection, minimum statutory notice, request flexible working and paid time off for trade union duties and for ante-natal care etc. Employees can include both part-time and full-time staff with the only difference being that pay or rewards are calculated on a pro-rata basis for part—time employees.

• Worker – Workers are paid on invoice and complete work themselves, they can use their own equipment and could be freelance. They are now entitled to similar terms and conditions as those given to employees, but are not covered by all legislation that applies to employees. Workers are entitle to: National Minimum Wage, working time rights, such as weekly and daily statutory breaks, and 48hrs maximum working week, a companion during disciplinary hearing, protection from discrimination, health & safety protection, paid annual leave etc.

• Self –employed – Someone who is self-employed contracts their service; they set their own hours of work and have no right to expect work. Their contract is for service, not for time and they are not subject to disciplinary procedures. Self-employed workers aren’t paid through PAYE, and they don’t have the employment rights and responsibilities of employees.

“Someone can be both employed and self-employed at the same time, for example if they work for an employer during the day and run their own business in the evenings.”

It’s important to underline here the concept of mutual obligation in relation to a contact of service. Simply, it’s an obligation on the worker to work and an obligation on the employer to pay him and to continue to make work available during the time of the contract.

Identify and analyse for the employer why it is important to determine the employment status for individuals working at the park (give 2 examples)

Employment status matters a great deal for the individuals in understanding their rights and for employers in understanding their obligations to those individuals. The correct identification and understanding of an individual’s status can influence their approach to the whole working relationship.

For instance, an “employee” will be protected against unfair dismissal, he/she will be entitled to a redundancy payment, and is entitled to receive notice from the employer before being dismissed from the job. Additionally, an employee is entitled to the minimum wage payable according to national legislation and their working hours are governed under provisions of the working time regulations. They are also protected against any form of discrimination.

In contrast, if one of the “workers” from the farm was sick, he would be entitled to be paid statutory sick pay. However, he wouldn’t be entitled to statutory redundancy payment if things didn’t work well at the farm, and some redundancies were planned.

If a farm needed a tractor driver to provide a tractor ride service for children over the summer he could be self-employed in this case, bringing his own tractor and only providing a service for the farm. If he didn’t turn up he could have his contract terminated without the need to go through the disciplinary procedures.

Anna and her boss, David, got into a big argument. Anna got paid less than her coworker John for the same job position, causing them to argue. Their gender causes their only difference. The clients utilize an employment lawyer to attempt to resolve this issue. Employment law, a branch of law, focuses on all the rights and obligations that define a business owner’s relationship with his or her employees. This includes, but not limited to; wages, discrimination, medical leave, overtime pay, and other related employment law matters, making it a crucial career in society. For these reasons, employment law stands as a quality career choice based on its substantial history, career paths, and impact on society.

Throughout history, working conditions were horrendous, especially during the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s. As factories expanded, businesses needed an increase in workers. With so many people desperate to work, employers set their wages as low as they wanted. Numerous people worked 14-16 hours a day for six days a week. Most only got paid eight to ten dollars a week putting them, on average, at 10 cents an hour. Women received one-third to one-half that of men’s wages and children received even less. The U.S Department of Labor mentioned that these conditions remained terrible until the federal child labor provision laws were finally ratified to get rid of these unethical circumstances. With more laws came more employment lawyers, needed to keep the workplace ethical and legal.

Over time many different laws were passed to ensure the safety and welfare in the workplace. According to Cornell Law School, some laws passed include the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Nineteenth Century Civil Rights Acts, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and Rehabilitation Act (“Employment Discrimination”). These documents have one major similarity: they limit the control of the federal and state governments to discriminate. Employment lawyers base their decisions and ethics on these documents that shape the workplace.

In order to become a successful employment lawyer, students must follow the law school pathway. High schools offer many rigorous and challenging classes that may prepare students for the difficult law school track. According to College Board’s article “Career: Private Practice Layers,” some of the most popular classes in high school to take in preparation for law school regards the fields of psychology, history, and English. By developing critical reading, writing, and speaking skills in high school, students become ready to cope with the upcoming challenges of law school. Joining the debate team also provides skills beneficial to law school as it helps to get a feel for the courtroom and uses evidence to argue one’s side. Another great opportunity students can take in high school to get to know more about employment lawyersand what they do, comes from volunteering or interning with a law firm. Finally, students should always try their best in all of their classes. Colleges encourage getting good grades and earning a well-rounded academic background as it proves that students are ready for the challenges of law school.

To attend law school, students must major in a specific subject first. Once successfully completing college and earning a bachelor’s degree, students can then enter law school. No specific courses need to be taken before attending law school, however, students must complete a bachelor’s degree. The most popular pre-law majors are philosophy/classics, economics, political science, history, English, and engineering. After successfully earning an undergraduate degree and passing the law school admission test, law school comes next. Law school normally takes three years of full-time study. In their first year, students take many required courses including civil procedure, contracts, property laws, and torts. In their second and third years, students choose more elective-based courses that specialize in employment discrimination, worker compensation, collective bargaining, as well as labor dispute resolution. Finally, students need to take the bar test and upon successfully passing this exam, can officially practice employment law.

Employment law regards a broad branch of law that covers all aspects of employment, referring to everything from contracts to laws that protect against discrimination and unfair dismissal. Many parts of employment law include age discrimination, bullying and harassment, disability, discrimination based on race, religion, sexuality or gender, dismissal and employee grievances, employment contracts, equal pay, minimum wage, parental leave, redundancy, and working hours. Employment lawyers can choose to work for the government or private law firms. Some of the best law firms to work for are Barnes & Thornburg, Buchanan Ingersoll, and Smith & Prophete. Lawyer.Edu.Org estimates that employment lawyers tend to make an average salary of $144,000 but range from $65,000 to $175,000 based on his/her experience as well as the size and location of the firm. Recent graduates, having little experience, tend to receive the lowest salary.

Similar to how the Constitution sets forth the standards of day-to-day life, employment lawyers have a set of laws to help in shaping the legality of the workplace. Harvard Law School states that the three statues are the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the Railway Labor Act, and the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA). The NLRA controls the power by which employers may react to union organizers, participate in collective bargaining, and take part in protests and other forms of collaborative activity in support of their demands. The second major federal statute that concerns the rights of union workers is the Railway Labor Act. This act gives employees of the railway and airline industries a way they can cooperate and participate in collective bargaining while at the same time protecting commerce from damaging work stoppages and delays, both domestically and internationally. The third major aspect of federal legislation regards the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. This act, popularly known as the Landrum-Griffin Act, addresses union officer elections and financial controls, discovered to enforce basic standards of democracy and revenue responsibility in private sector labor organizations.

Employment lawyers need excellent writing, research and communication skills. They tend to live in an extroverted (interpersonal) lifestyle making self-management skills crucial to assist clients. Employment lawyers tend to possess responsibility and punctilious skills. These skills along with being analytical, creative, and flexible allow employment lawyers to reach their highest potential. Communication plays a big part in this career path. All lawyers, especially employment lawyers, must have strong oral and written communication skills in order to accurately rehearse critical legal information. This skill plays out often in the courtroom, where lawyers must create a strong and convincing argument. To succeed, problem-solving skills also play a huge factor in a lawyer’s defending skills. Judges and juries all bring their own opinions, beliefs, and backgrounds so a lawyer’s argument must have the ability to reach out to all of them and convince accordingly. Finally, employment lawyers must obtain good listening skills. When it comes to detail, lawyers need to have an excellent understanding of everything and anything. They must listen closely to the details presented by their clients and use their problem-solving skills to effectively analyze what their clients need and make decisions from there (Edwards et al).

According to Jason Weintraub, employment lawyer of Taco Bell, the average day in the life of an employment lawyer comes with many challenges. Weintraub’s workday consists of meetings that include Taco Bell’s business partners, clients, and team. In these meetings, Weintraub writes, reads, and negotiates contracts. During this time, he brainstorms new ways to grow the business and who they can partner or collaborate with to increase the growth. Weintraub decides how Taco Bell selects and pays its business partners, to make sure the company profits the most they possibly can. Weintraub’s mainly focuses on influencing companies to engage in a partnership to help Taco Bell’s business expand. Weintraub advices future lawyers to join the debate team in high school, live in the dorms in college, and take a job raising money for the university as a way to learn how to interact and persuade people.

In conclusion, employment lawyers have a huge impact on many people’s lives. Employment lawyers are crucial in resolving serious conflicts between an employer and an employee. It takes many important skills that are attributed to law schools. Employment lawyers deal with a large variety of issues including discrimination and wages. Without employment lawyers, the world would not run as smoothly as it does today. They make sure companies are being ethical and following the law; keeping society functioning properly.

Employment Law regulates relationships between employers and employees. It is subject to frequent legislative and case law developments as employers are at the forefront of social change. It affords different rights and obligations depending on the employment status an individual holds. Therefore, it is vital to determine the different types of employment status in Wales and appreciate why the differences are significant. This report will examine the significance of determining whether an individual is a worker and analyze the extent to which recent cases and government policies have ensured Employment Law is satisfactory. This will be achieved by addressing the current distinction between employees and workers; the growth of the Gig Economy (and its implications; the recent developments in Employment Law; the potential for reform focusing on the 2017 Taylor Review and the Government’s responses to it; and suggestions of further reforms.

What is the difference between employees and workers?

Employees are individuals that work under a contract of employment (section 230(1) Employment Rights Act 1996). In contrast, workers are individuals ‘who work under a contract of employment or any other contract, whereby the individual undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services for another party to the contract whose status is not that of a client or customer’. There is a legal distinction between contracts of service whereby individuals are subordinate and dependent on their employer and contracts for service whereby labor is provided by independent contractors (workers).

Currently, all employees are workers but not all workers are employees under ‘limb (b)’ where personal services are provided to third parties who are not customers or clients.

What are the complexities involved in determining one’s employment status?

Distinguishing between employees and workers is vital because each has different rights. Workers have fewer employment rights than employees, albeit the retention of basic protections such as the right to a national minimum wage. Employees have access to a range of employment rights, albeit some rights have qualifying periods. The table below demonstrates the distinction.

Whilst there are three categories used to determine access to employment rights, the legal framework is intricate. The definition of employment is inconsistent across statutes and related branches of law – equity law and social security legislation are prime examples. In whistleblowing legislation, ‘worker’ has an extended meaning. Clyde and Co v Bates van Winkelhof [2014] 3 All ER 225 illustrates this effect. It was confirmed members of a Limited Liability Partnership (‘LLP’) are ‘workers’. The appeal was allowed, holding unanimously the appellant was a worker (Employment Rights Act 1996). Lady Hale, (lead judgment), stated the ‘immediately striking thing’s how much hard work has to be done…to find that a member of an LLP is not a worker within…section 230(3)(b) of the 1996 Act.’ The appellant worked under a contract personally to perform work services ‘for’ the LLP, who was not her ‘client or customer’. ‘How then can it be said that she was not a ‘worker’ for this purpose?’ This decision extended the protections afforded to ‘workers’ to partners in an LLP. Consequentially, employers are now required to enroll partners in an LLP into pension-saving schemes.

Aside from the complications of defining work status differently for different purposes, knowing whether an individual has any employment status is a practical challenge. Various judicial decisions contain legal requirements for employment status, creating uncertainty about an individual’s access to employment rights. The leading case is Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497. This concerned a driver who was declared an independent contractor for a mixed concrete company. The issue was whether the driver was an employed person under a contract of service with the company for the National Insurance Act 1965. Mckenna J held a ‘contract of service’ exists provided:

1. There is a personal service in exchange for remuneration (neither an employee nor a worker has unfettered rights to substitute their work);
2. The employee agrees to be subject to a sufficient degree of control (making the other an employer); and
3. There is a mutuality of obligations where the employer provides the work, and the individual accepts and performs the work given.

Mckenna J defined control as the power of deciding what and how a task will be done, the means of doing it, and the time and place where it shall be done. The more freedom an individual has over when, where, and how they perform required services, the more likely it is they are ‘self-employed’. It was held the driver had sufficient freedom in the performance of his contractual obligations regarding the vehicle he used and his labor, therefore, he was self-employed.

Furthermore, Pimlico Plumbers v Smith 2018SC 29 was another Supreme Court (‘SC’) case that focused on whether a plumber holding contract stating he was self-employed was a worker. The Court upheld the decision that he was a worker. Mr. Smith worked for Pimlico for six years. During this time, there was a level of control – he wore a Pimlico uniform, drove a company-branded van, and his movements were monitored via GPS. When Smith parted with Pimlico, he brought a claim for unfair dismissal, discrimination, and that holiday pay was owed. The Employment Tribunal (‘ET’) held Smith was a worker, thus being afforded protection against discrimination and entitled to holiday pay. Pimlico appealed this decision, and the Court of Appeal was faced with the following questions:

1. Did Mr. Smith have an obligation to provide the work personally?
2. Was the work for himself or to provide a service to Pimlico as a client or customer or was he providing the service on behalf of Pimlico?

The Court of Appeal found no contrary evidence suggesting Smith could substitute another plumber to provide the service because there would have been difficulty contacting customers outside working hours. Pimlico exercised a high degree of control over Smith; the stringent restrictive covenants dealing with post-termination matters; the ET’s finding he was contractually obligated to work forty hours per week meant the Court of Appeal upheld the ET’s decision that he was a worker. An appeal to the SC meant they had to determine whether Mr. Smith was a limb (b) worker. There was a personal service requirement and Pimlico was not a customer or client. Moreover, the elements of tight operational and financial control; fierce conditions on when and how Mr. Smith received remuneration; restrictive covenants regarding post-termination matters; use of ‘wages’, ‘gross misconduct’, and ‘dismissal’ in the contract and handbook were considered ‘ill-considered lapses’ (incompetence) which supported the overall decision to uphold the findings of the appellant courts and ET. This decision emphasized the importance of the reality of working relationships between an employer and an individual regardless of what the contractual terms state.

These cases illustrate the inevitable consequence of the common law approach. Reliance on case law to develop the Employment Rights Act 1996 is contradictory and creates ambiguity. However, it enables flexibility because the Courts and ETs can deploy and develop principles in response to social change. This could be beneficial considering the recent growth of GE following the COVID-19 pandemic.

What is the GE and its implications?

There is no agreed definition, although it is described as a ‘labor market characterized by the prevalence of short-term contracts or freelance work, as opposed to permanent jobs’. Common jobs offered under the GE include couriers, ride-hailing drivers, video producers, taxi driving and many more. As of 2017, it was estimated that 1.3 million people (4% of all in employment) were employed in this type of capacity. This is expected to grow to 7.25 million people by the end of 2022 due to its benefits. It provides flexibility for both parties – individuals have the freedom to choose the ‘gigs’ they do in exchange for remuneration instead of regular work schedules and wages employees receive; employers can pay when the work becomes available instead of incurring unnecessary staff costs. The need to save on staff costs has become significant following the COVID-19 pandemic as lockdown has accelerated the shift to online shopping, reducing the demand for employees in-store. As demonstrated by the chart, total sales values have dropped to 6.5% below their pre-pandemic level in January 2021, suggesting a long-term shift toward online shopping. This is one example of a recent social change that impacted Employment Law.

This year the Assembly Economy Committee has launched an investigation into the economic insecurity in, including the GE. The aim is to understand the implications of the GE on the employment status, pay and conditions of GE workers. Neil Garratt – Chairman of the Economy Committee – has written to the Mayor of on 25 March 2022, explaining the implication. Whilst this structure provides flexibility, for some workers, it is a source of insecure work with irregular hours, few employment rights, and low pay. Many self-employed workers have been negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and because many did not qualify for government support, they have been forced to work in this capacity. Generally, workers in the GE are independent contractors, meaning there is no protection against unfair dismissal or rights to receive redundancy payments, national minimum wage, paid holiday or even sickness pay. This is concerning in the current climate following the financial impacts of the Pandemic, Brexit and the conflict between Russia and Ukraine which has increased the living costs significantly. The recent growth of the GE has created uncertainty regarding the position of ‘workers’ and increased litigation as claims are brought against businesses such as Uber and Deliveroo. The common argument is whether individuals are limb (b) workers or self-employed. Companies seek to classify individuals as self-employed because they serve their own clients, however, recent case law consistently found individuals working within the GE qualify for worker status.

In Uber BV v Aslam [2021]SC 5, Uber Drivers brought a claim to the ET against Uber in 2016, which was referred to the SC for one preliminary issue – are the Uber Drivers ‘workers’ or ‘independent contractors’? It was unanimously held they were ‘workers’. The SC affirmed to determine an individual’s employment status; different factors must be considered but the employment contract is not the starting point. This was established in Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher (2011)SC 41, where Aitkens LJ stated that: ‘contracts concerning work and services, where one party alleges that the written contract terms do not accurately reflect the true agreement of the parties…the question the court has to answer is: what contractual terms did the parties actually agree?’ The key consideration is the type of relationship Parliament intended to afford statutory employment protection. In Uber BV v Aslam [2021]SC 5, the Uber Drivers were subordinate and dependent on Uber – they could not substitute their services with another driver because the driver’s name and license plate appear once a consumer booked an Uber. This meant Uber held a level of control as the employer. The Drivers were held to be working when they are available. The SC made comparisons to firefighters or care workers who work during the times they are ‘on-call’ and drew the similarity to the Uber Drivers. On such grounds, the Drivers were held to be workers and the case has been referred back to the ET.

Overall, the definition of a ‘worker’ has been embellished by the GE cases discussed above. Claims brought against organisations such as Uber, Autoclenz and Pimlico Plumbers highlighted the ambiguity of whether individuals were workers or self-employed. Following the Court of Appeal’s decision in the Pimlico case , the firm’s founder confirmed, ‘we can’t get our heads around this word ‘worker’ and what it means’. Nonetheless, since the SC’s decision in Autoclenz , the Courts are willing to look beyond the employment contract and labels applied to each party to determine how the relationship works in practical terms. This was evident in the Uber case. The Law is likely to continue to evolve into modern employment practices due to the Court’s responses to the new working practices typified by the GE and suggestions for reform by the ‘TR’ reported on 11 July 2017.

What is the TR report?

The TRR was published in July 2017 and had one overriding ambition: to make all work economy fair and decent with realistic scope for development. It recommended various amendments to Employment Law, seeking to build on the distinctive strengths of existing labour markets and framework of regulation. The report highlighted the need to organise national frameworks around the commitment to good work for everyone with the recommendations focusing on three prevalent challenges:

1. Tackling exploitation;
2. Increasing clarity in the law and helping people know and exercise their rights; and
3. Aligning the incentives driving the nature of our labour market with our modern industrial strategy and national objectives.

The following points discuss two key Taylor recommendations on employment status and the responses to them.

Employment status tests should be contained within primary legislation.

Matthew Taylor recommended:

Government should replace minimalistic approaches to legislation with clearer outlines of tests for employment status, setting out key principles in primary legislation, and using secondary legislation and guidance to provide more detail.

Currently, the legal tests for employment status are contained in case law. This enables judges to develop the law as social change arises without constraining effects of statutes, but it creates ambiguity. Incorporating the tests into primary legislation will give Employment Lawyers ‘a clearer target to aim at. However, this comes with the danger of obscuring principles. Taylor recommended incorporating high-level principles in primary legislation to provide transparency whilst retaining flexibility for judges to depart from principles and modify them through secondary legislation. This proposal, prima facie, appears beneficial – it addresses the complexities of determining one’s employment status. Although, primary legislation is not more accessible to laypeople than case law and it will inevitably need interpretation as new case law develops. Many commentators have critiqued this recommendation because careful attention to detail is required to ensure the implementation is effective. Some have suggested this will be difficult to achieve because Taylor has not provided guidance on which principles should be incorporated.

Rename limb (b) workers to ‘dependent contractors’.

Matthew Taylor recommended:

Government should retain the current three-tier approach to employment status as it remains relevant but rename the category of ‘limb (b) workers’ as ‘dependent contractors’.

Taylor suggests the current definition of workers creates confusion and should be renamed: dependent contractors. This is considered controversial, and many commentators have criticised it as renaming an existing category without addressing the issue. Contrarily, others criticise the language, not the concept; ‘dependent contractor’ suggests a degree of subordination which is not a legal test used to determine employment status. Nonetheless, implementation would entitle GE workers to the other rights afforded to workers but it is yet to be implemented. Garratt’s letter addressed to the Mayor stated: The Queen’s 2019 Speech proposed to introduce an employment bill that builds on existing employment law with measures to protect low-paid workers in the GE. This has not been introduced and was not included in the 2021 Speech. Garratt recommended the Mayor lobby the Government and agree on a timetable to introduce the employment bill which should preserve Taylor’s recommendations and clarify workers’ employment status in the GE.

What were the Government’s responses?

The Government responded to the TR in February 2018, agreeing it should be easier for individuals and businesses to determine one’s employment status. Commitments to achieve boundaries between employment and self-employment meant the Government have accepted all except one Taylor recommendation and there has been consideration of legislative reforms. Below is a summary of the Government’s response to Taylor’s recommendations.

What are the recent developments following the Taylor recommendations?

The Government introduced the Good Work Plan and draft legislation in December 2018. Two key developments have followed since. Workers will be entitled to:

1. a written statement of particulars which will itemise basic terms and conditions , outline probationary periods and family leave ;
2. an itemised payslip; and
3. having their annual leave entitlement calculated using the 52-week reference period, (previously 12-week) subject to working variable hours for one year.

Furthermore, workers shall have the right to request predictable and stable contracts after 26 weeks of continuous service. However, the Government drafted rules are pending.

What reforms should be implemented going forward?

One aspect of the GE remains unaddressed – amendments to legislation providing standardised rights for GE workers. Most have rights to national minimum wages, but the rapid expansion of the GE meant new joiners experience poor working conditions andor rights because no standard regulation is in force. Whilst Taylor’s recommendations are being implemented, Employment Law must adapt and develop to provide regulations. Creating a national GE worker wage will address the ongoing concern of workers’ rights to national minimum wages. Furthermore, codification of the law is necessary. Agreeing on unified definitions of ’employment’ and employment status tests to be incorporated into primary legislation will address the complexities that have been examined throughout.

Overall, Employment Law regulates relationships between employers and employees. Whilst the common law approach enables fluidity within the legal system as the Courts and ETs can deploy and develop principles according to social change, reform of the law around ‘workers’ is necessary. Reliance on case law is contradictory and creates ambiguity as evidenced in inconsistent definitions and responses to the decision in Pimlico Plumbers v Smith 2018SC 29: ‘We can’t get our heads around this word ‘worker’ and what it means’. Moreover, Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497 highlighted the complexities in determining one’s employment status. Employment Law has functional systems for employees; however, society has developed, and the GE has grown into a common capacity of employment following Brexit and COVID-19. For this reason, Employment Law is not satisfactory for workers. Recent SC cases and Government policies implementing change demonstrate the ‘need to strike the right balance between security, flexibility and innovation’ whilst providing transparency, information, and advice about employment rights.

Mr. Bradley Stonefield must observe all employment laws in Austin, TX for the new limousine service. Throughout processes that would involve the 25 employees, Mr. Stonefield must ensure compliance with the law for the success of the business. Failure to comply with these laws could result into long legal tussles with employees and their representatives and cause financial ruin to the company.

This memo focuses on relevant employment laws as well as how they are legally used. In addition, the memo explores consequences of failure to comply with the employment laws. These laws are different, but an employer must observe all of them, including others not covered in this memo.

The memo focuses on four employment laws that Landslide Limousines must observe. These employment laws include Texas Payday; Texas Minimum Wage Act; the Texas Child Labor Law; and Employment Discrimination.

The Employment Laws for Austin, TX and Consequences of Noncompliance

Texas Payday

Texas Labor Code has a provision for the Texas Payday Law. The law accounts for all private business organizations, irrespective of their sizes. Any person that engages in service provision for payment is regarded as an employee, apart from relatives and independent contractors.

There are specific payments that fall under the Texas Payday Law. The company will account for all compensations irrespective of how they are calculated; commissions and bonuses based on the agreement; and specific fringe benefits due based on a written agreement or the company’s policy.

Noncompliance with the Texas Payday Law has severe consequences to an employer. The Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) investigates and determines if an employer did not obey the law and acted in a bad faith. The TWC reviews administrative penalty against the employer equivalent to the wages claimed or $1,000, whichever is less.

At the same time, any employee who files a complaint in a bad faith may also bear similar penalties. Overall, it is against the law for an employer to fail to pay wages after receiving notification from TWC and to hire or continue to employ a person with the intent of not paying due wages.

Texas Minimum Wage Act

The TWC offers information to both the employer and employee on the Texas Minimum Wage Act, and their respective duties, rights and remedies under the Act.

The Act requires an employer to have a minimum wage for non-exempt employees, provide written statements of employees’ earnings, recognize the TWC as an agency responsible for providing information on Texas minimum wage provisions, offering civil remedies and exempting certain employers from the Act.

Currently, Texas has adopted the Federal Minimum Wage of the year “2009, which was $7.25 per hour”. The Act does not bar employees from bargaining for higher wages.

Employers could include tips, meals and lodging costs to the minimum wage, but only under specific restrictions. An employer may not compensate workers who reside on the business premise for on-call time together with the normal working hours.

In some instances, an employer may continue to pay sub-minimum wages to employees who have certain medical conditions, particularly mental illness.

Any employer who pays lower than the legal minimum wage may face legal action from employees. An employee can file a complaint within two years from the due date to claim the unpaid wages and any amount incurred as damages. In addition, the employer must bear legal costs.

The Texas Child Labor Law

The law considers employees under the age of 18 years. The Texas Child Labor Law protects children from harmful employment. In addition, it does not allow any child under the age of 14 years to be employed, except under certain situations.

The TWC also controls all issues related to child employment with the aim of protecting the rights to education, health, safety and well-being. The TWC has a right to inspect the working condition for children, and employers who hinder investigation could face criminal charges. Businesses must observe the state law, “except entities subjected to the Federal law of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)”.

Driving

Under the Texas State Law, children may be employed to operate a motor vehicle for a commercial purpose under specific conditions. The child may work under direct supervision of their parents or legal guardian in their business.

The child must have a valid driver’s license. Children may work in businesses where they do not require a commercial license to conduct the job. Finally, a child cannot operate a vehicle with more 15,000 pounds of total weight and has over two axles.

In addition, Texas State Law requires children between the age of 14 and 15 years old not to work for more than 8 hours in a day, 48 hours in a week and cannot report to work before 5 a.m. Still, children cannot work after 10 p.m during school days and past midnight on other days.

Any violation of the “Texas Child Labor Law is a Class B misdemeanor”. Nevertheless, if a person employs a child who does not meet the minimum age requirement for “a type of employment, but did so in good faith relying on an apparently valid certificate of age, then that may be a defense against prosecution”.

Therefore, noncompliance with the Texas Child Labor Law is a criminal offense with criminal penalties. In addition, the TWC may evaluate all administrative penalties against the employer of up to $10,000 per violation.

Employment Discrimination

A former, current, or prospective employee can complain against an employer in the State of Texas under the Texas Labor Code. The TWC reviews many cases related to employee discrimination on the following areas:

• Not hired due to a disability
• Gender
• Nationality of origin
• Race or ethnic
• Harassment based on age differences
• Denial of benefits due to pregnancy
• Retaliation against employees because of filing a complaint

For example, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 prohibits discrimination based on employee age, particularly employees who are over 40 years of age.

Employers must not discriminate because of age when hiring, promoting, discharging, compensating, or on other terms of the employment policy (Ray, Sharpe, & Strassfeld, 2011). Employers who fail to comply with this Act may be fined up to $500 or be imprisoned for a period not exceeding a year or face charges on both counts.

The TWC shall review all discrimination complaint and works with its Civil Rights Division (a neutral investigator) to ascertain if any discrimination took place under the Texas Labor Code. The Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for solving any employment discrimination in the State of Texas.

It is against the Texas Labor Code for any employer to retaliate against employee because of filing a discrimination complaint, supporting a complaint, opposing discrimination or engaging in a proceeding. Therefore, an employer cannot dismiss, demote or harass any employees on such grounds.

Texas Labor Code on employee discrimination affects employers with more than 15 employees.

Recommendations on how Landslide Limousines can be compliant

The Texas Workforce Commission is responsible for ensuring that all employers in Austin, TX adhere to the Texas Labor Code. These laws were enacted to protect both the employer and employees from any forms of abuse and exploitation.

Failure to comply with the Texas Labor Code has legal penalties and financial implications for the company. Mr. Bradley Stonefield, therefore, should consider the following recommendations when handling employee issues for Landslide Limousines.

• Both the employer and employees should understand the Texas Labor Code to allow them to observe their rights and obligations
• Landslide Limousines should not employ any child because of difficulties in meeting requirements associated with child labor in Texas
• The company must not discriminate any potential employees based on their age, nationality, race, gender and disabilities among others
• In case of any employment discrimination against Landslide Limousines, the company should not retaliate against employees, potential employees or former employees
• The employer and the employee must understand the role of Texas Workforce Commission, Civil Rights Division, and the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
• Employees and the employer must not act in bad faith against each other

References

Gould IV, W. (2013). A Primer on American Labor Law (5th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ray, D., Sharpe, C., & Strassfeld, R. (2011). Understanding Labor Law (3r ed.). New York: LexisNexis.

Texas Workforce Commission. (2014). Employment Law: Discrimination, Wages & Child Labor. Web.