Category: Employment Law

Introduction

The employment sector in the United Kingdom (UK) has undergone various changes over the past forty years. The British government put employment laws in place to safeguard the rights of UK workers (Rosenbloom et al.,2017; King & Case, 2020). Failure by any employer to abide by the employee laws would attract penalties; violating employee rights in the United Kingdom quickly leads to staff appealing to employment tribunals.

The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, also called HASAWA, the HSWA, the HSW Act, or the 1974 Act, covers occupational safety and health measures in Great Britain. It obliges employers to ensure the health, welfare, and safety of all those within the premises. The Health & Safety Executive (HSE) was set to sanction the violation of HASAWA.

• Bribery Act 2010: It was designed to fight corruption at the workplace.
• Data Protection Act 2018: It works alongside the Data Protection Act of 1998 and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). It advocates for the proper storage of private employee information.
• Working Time Regulations of 1998: Employees’ time away from work is to be respected by employers.

A clear description and assessment of employment law and various statues

Employment law is codified legislation that covers relationships between employer and employee and trade unions. In the United Kingdom (UK), many laws provide a framework of employees’ and employers’ rights. There are three primary sources of Employment Law in Wales and England: Statute Law, Common Law, and European Law. The law grants employees specific minimum legal rights, such as the right to enjoy a maximum of 12 weeks as weeks’ notice per year of service. Essentially, employment law deals with rights employees deserve at their workplaces, for example, reasonable notice before dismissal, maternal leaves for pregnant women, and time off rights for parenting (Vallas & Schor, 2020; Todolí-Signes, 2017). It has been significantly tailored, especially by the Labor Government, to encompass the right to flexible working hours.

Identification of the various acts and statutes

The following is a list of various acts and statutes which are related to employment laws and are enforced in the United Kingdom:

• Employment Rights Act of 1996: It contains special rights of employees when they are away from the workplace yet still working for their respective organizations.
• National Minimum Wage Act of 1998: It sets the National Minimum Wage for employees and employers in the entire United Kingdom. The government reviews it to keep it at par with factors such as inflation.
• Employment Relations Act of 1999: It focuses on industrial relations. It sets a clear framework on trade union operations, their recognition, derecognition, industrial actions, and rights at work for employment unions.
• The Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations of 1999: It came about as Statutory legislation governing the rights of employees for time off (McConnell, 2019).
• Part-Time Workers Regulations of 2000: It prevents preferential treatment at the workplace; there is harmony and equity in workplace measures. Ideally, there is no difference in pay for workers on full-time and part-time workers.
• Protection of Employment (Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations of 2006 protect existing employees’ rights and their employment contracts or promises when the company they work for undergoes a business transfer.
• The Equality Act of 2010: It prevents workplace discrimination and unjust recruitment designs.
• Agency Workers Regulations of 2010: It is Statutory legislation almost similar to Part-Time Workers Regulations of 2000. It requires equal treatment in pay and working hours for full-time and part-time workers alike.

An outline and description of why legislation has been introduced

Employment law legislation was introduced to control relationships between employees and their employers. Workplace regulations seek to promote fairness, equality, and justice in employment; thus, ensuring the whole process of employment, from recruitment to dismissals, is fair (Nigri et al., 2020). Intra-organizational relationships are essential in maintaining a good rapport between all organization workers (Bundy et al., 2018; Paais & PATTIRUHU, 2020). The legislation was also introduced to ensure workers are not mistreated by their employers. According to Corbett (2022), the UK government introduced workplace legislation to solve discrimination based on age, race, gender, religion, disability, bullying, employment contracts, holiday pay, and redundancy.

A critical evaluation of the reason(s) for introducing the area of law

Equality act 2010 – what is new and what has changed

Equality act came into work on the 1st of October 2010. The Equality Act protects the rights and dignity of individuals so that people live harmoniously in society.

Race discrimination

Equality act protects on from racial discrimination by making laws that prohibit the act. Equality act 2010 was introduced because people of African descent were denied privileges because of their skin color.

Gender reassignment

The members of the LGBTQ community should not be discriminated against. According to Batool (2020), the Equality Act 2010 protects individuals who want to live a different gender from the one they were assigned at birth. According to the equality act 2010, one does not need to undergo surgery to assume any gender because gender is an identity that starts from the mind.

Age

Equality acts 2010 provides laws against the discrimination of an individual on the grounds of age. The equality act separates the age of the child from the age of an adult. Young adults are not to be discriminated against for performing other duties.

The way that HR departments have adopted these pieces of legislation

It is illegal to deny someone a job because they have a disability. In many firms since 2010, there has been a well-organized department of disability. Gender discrimination has been rendered illegal, and harsh consequences await the offenders. Several companies and government offices have a department of gender. Gender equity and equality are championed in most institutions. All this has been achieved by the adoption of the equality act 2010.

Impact of these pieces of legislation

These pieces of legislation are of great importance to individual workers, employee unions, and employers. Employers disregarded some employment laws for their profit. Employment laws were a tool of protection for employees against their more powerful employers; thus, protecting them from numerous threats from their employers (Gebhardt, 2019). Notable employment laws include the minimum wage, discrimination, child labor laws, workers’ compensation, and workplace safety and health laws.

Particular employment laws prevent discrimination at the workplace from occurring. Ideally, they protect workers against discrimination that their employers could mitigate. The laws protect workers against discrimination based on color, sex, disability or national affiliation, genetic information, citizenship status, religion, and age (Vornholt et al., 2018). Most legal protections and rights emanate from federal and state employment laws, especially regarding companies having capacities of at least fifteen employees.

Employment laws also have provisions for minimum wage and remuneration for a job done. Previously, before the government set minimum wage regulations, employers had the discretion to decide what to pay their employees (Augustine, 2019). The Great Depression worsened the situation since employers paid their workers wages that could not sustain their families’ basic needs. The United States of America, for instance, set its first federal minimum wage in 1938 due to low wages.

The laws have also improved general workplace safety and health. The government regulates workplace safety, not only physically but also health-wise (Orazulike, 2018). Before the government intervened in workplace safety and health, many challenges faced workers daily (Tang, 2020; Szeman & O’Brien, 2017). However, the regulation and coordination of the work safety employment laws were uneven (Weber et al., 2021). Generally, these statutes cater to unsafe work conditions, electric hazards, temperature moderations, recurrent workplace injuries, long work hours, and biochemical hazards.

Employment laws also cover child labor, especially regarding the fundamental rights of the children at the workplace. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed The Fair Labor Standards Act into law, thus safeguarding the workplace environment of the children. Children between ages five and six worked in dangerous workplaces where even adults could not work (Unicef, 2020). The child labor statutes inform minimum working obligations for children in many industries other than agriculture.

Compensation for workers is also considered in employment laws in the UK. Workers’ compensation insurance covers work-related injuries medical expenses (Baron, 2018; Boštjančič & Slana, 2018). The insurance also ensures the worker is paid partial wages even as they recover from their injury. Employers who do not subscribe to insurance covers are responsible for all their employees’ injuries. When employers neglect their duty to compensate the employees, the law requires that the workers sue them.

Description and critical analysis of individual employment legislation and their Impact

Individual employment legislation covers what employees are mandated to do at the workplace, their freedoms and rights, what duties they owe their employers, and what employers are allowed to ask them to do. It contains statutory obligations that are enforceable by employment tribunals. Essentially, individual employment legislation covers discrimination based on race, religion, gender, origin, status, income, or disability.

Individual employment legislations often result in both benefits and disadvantages to the employees and the organization as a whole. For instance, small-scale entrepreneurial ventures, especially informal management practices, can hardly initiate penalties for workplace misconduct (Kaufman, 2020). They fear that imposing sanctions will demotivate employees and lower their general productivity. The essence of employment laws is regulation; as such, the organizations must fulfill them completely. In contrast, employment laws offer many benefits to the workplace, not only to employers but also to the organization and the employees. It ensures the organization runs smoothly, with the roles of all employees well-defined. The employer has an easy time relating with their workers, for the employment legislation guides their relationship. The organization benefits from these legislations by complying with government regulation, thus minimal government sanctions.

The positive and negative impacts of employment law in HR departments

Employment law affects organizations’ Human Resource (HR) departments differently; it has positive and negative impacts. The employment law particularly affects the HR department since it handles workers’ welfare in the workplace environment. Positive impacts include employees’ protection from discrimination and manipulation by employer power. Law protects employees from distortion of their payroll, safety, equality rights, working hours, and holiday freedoms. In addition, the HR adoption and compliance with employment law give the employees a chance to be educated on their rights and responsibilities and channels of reporting violations (Marlina et al., 2021). On the other hand, other than employment law ensuring social justice and proper workplace relationships, it also has disadvantages. For instance, it leads to a strained relationship between the management and the workers when the management enforces regulations on the employees who do not agree with them (Tennant et al., 2017; Ahammad, 2017). The employers perceive some employment law statutes to be a means of downplaying them, to favor the workers. Nevertheless, the employment law plays a great role in developing effective acceptable HR policies despite several disadvantages.

How effective was employment law for the HR department?

The employment law was effective for the HR department since it ensured the order of human resource operations. Essentially, it manages all employee-employer relationships in terms of business practices and corporate policies. It protects employees from discrimination at the workplace and oppression by employers who would take advantage of workers in the absence of employment legislation (Benson et al., 2018). It covers the processes of recruitment, whistleblowing, hiring, firing, workplace health and safety, medical leaves, and fairness in remuneration. The employment law generally helped the HR department have ease in handling employment relations effectively.

Alternatives to employment law

Employment law includes several aspects such as at-will employment, redundancy, and termination. Contract employment is the best alternative to at-will employment. Contracts are regarded as legally binding, especially when implied, though some are written. Redundancy is part of employment law’s special considerations that can be made under unique circumstances (Rudolph et al., 2021). Alternatives to redundancy include: reduction in working time, job retention schemes, periods of unpaid leave, lay off or short-time working, flexible working, implementing pay cuts or pay freezes, provision of sabbatical leaves, retraining, and redeploying of staff, and withdrawing job offers or postponing new starts. According to Sigala (2020), alternatives to termination include geographic relocation, change in duties and responsibilities, change of title, offering alternative employment, merging various roles, and increasing or decreasing remuneration and performance targets.

Conclusion

Employment law covers the relationship between employers and employees at the workplace; therefore, regulating workplace ethics. In the United Kingdom (UK), the employment law has evolved to its current complex state. For the past 40 years, the UK government has approved state legislation that enhances workplace relations. The law deals with employer-employee relationships and workplace processes such as hiring and firing, child labor, workplace safety, medical cover, general workplace welfare, and remuneration. Ideally, employment legislation was introduced to promote fairness, equity, and justice at the workplace to redress oppression and employer abuse of power. It has many advantages to the workplace; for example, it regulates how employers handle the employees and ensures proper coordination of workplace activities; thus, maintaining order. In contrast, it has disadvantages such as strained employer-employee relations. Nevertheless, employment law has addressed many workplace challenges such as discrimination of employees; therefore, it is fundamental to the success of any organization.

References

Ahammad, T. (2017). Personnel management to human resource management (HRM): How HRM functions. Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing, 13(9), 412-420.

Augustine, D. (2019). Working around the law: Navigating legal barriers to employment during reentry.Law & Social Inquiry, 44(3), 726-751.

Baron, D. P. (2018). Disruptive entrepreneurship and dual purpose strategies: The case of Uber. Strategy Science, 3(2), 439-462.

Batool, F. (2020). Gender Discrimination At Workplace And Mental Health Of Women: A Systematic Literature Review. PalArch’s Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology, 17(8), 622-633.

Benson, J., Brown, M., Glennie, M., O’Donnell, M., & O’Keefe, P. (2018). The generational “exchange” rate: How generations convert career development satisfaction into organisational commitment or neglect of work. Human Resource Management Journal, 28(4), 524-539.

Boštjančič, E., & Slana, Z. (2018). The role of talent management comparing medium-sized and large companies–major challenges in attracting and retaining talented employees. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 1750.

Bundy, J., Vogel, R. M., & Zachary, M. A. (2018). Organization–stakeholder fit: A dynamic theory of cooperation, compromise, and conflict between an organization and its stakeholders. Strategic Management Journal, 39(2), 476-501.

Corbett, W. R. (2022). Cross-Statute Employment Discrimination Claims and the Need for a. Washington University Law Review, 99(5).

Gebhardt, D. L. (2019). Historical perspective on physical employment standards. Work, 63(4), 481-494.

Kaufman, B. E. (2020). The real problem: The deadly combination of psychologisation, scientism, and normative promotionalism takes strategic human resource management down a 30‐year dead end. Human Resource Management Journal, 30(1), 49-72.

King, D. L., & Case, C. J. (2020). A Brief History of Taxation of the American Colonies Prior to the Revolutionary War. Journal of Business and Accounting, 13(1), 154-175.

Marlina, L., Setyoningrum, N. G., Mulyani, Y. S., Permana, T. E., & Sumarni, R. (2021). Improving Employees Working Discipline with Punishment, Reward, and Implementation of Standard Operational Procedures. Perwira International Journal of Economics & Business, 1(1), 37-43.

McConnell, C. R. (2019). Human resource management in health care. Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Nigri, G., Del Baldo, M., & Agulini, A. (2020). Governance and accountability models in Italian certified benefit corporations. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(5), 2368-2380.

Orazulike, U. (2018). Post-Brexit threats to work safety and health standards and good working conditions in the UK. Psychosociological Issues in Human Resource Management, 6(1), 63-95.

Paais, M., & PATTIRUHU, J. R. (2020). Effect of motivation, leadership, and organizational culture on satisfaction and employee performance. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 7(8), 577-588.

Rosenbloom, D. H., O’leary, R., & Chanin, J. (2017). Public administration and law. Routledge.

Rudolph, C. W., Allan, B., Clark, M., Hertel, G., Hirschi, A., Kunze, F.,… & Zacher, H. (2021). Pandemics: Implications for research and practice in industrial and organizational psychology.Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 14(1-2), 1-35.

Sigala, M. (2020). Tourism and COVID-19: Impacts and implications for advancing and resetting industry and research. Journal of business research, 117, 312-321.

Szeman, I., & O’Brien, S. (2017). Popular culture: a user’s guide. John Wiley & Sons.

Tang, K. H. D. (2020). A comparative overview of the primary Southeast Asian safety and health laws. International Journal of Workplace Health Management.

Tennant, J. P., Dugan, J. M., Graziotin, D., Jacques, D. C., Waldner, F., Mietchen, D.,… & Colomb, J. (2017). A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review.F1000Research, 6.

Todolí-Signes, A. (2017). The ‘gig economy’: employee, self-employed or the need for a special employment regulation?Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 23(2), 193-205.

Unicef. (2020). Child Labour: Global estimates 2020, trends and the road forward. ILO and UNICEF. Web.

Vallas, S., & Schor, J. B. (2020). What do platforms do? Understanding the gig economy. Annual Review of Sociology, 46, 273-294.

Vornholt, K., Villotti, P., Muschalla, B., Bauer, J., Colella, A., Zijlstra, F.,… & Corbiere, M. (2018). Disability and employment–overview and highlights. European journal of work and organizational psychology, 27(1), 40-55.

Weber, D. J., Al-Tawfiq, J. A., Babcock, H. M., Bryant, K., Drees, M., Elshaboury, R.,… & Young, H. (2021). Multisociety statement on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination as a condition of employment for healthcare personnel.Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 1-9.

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 Queen’s 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 latter’s 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 Glover’s 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 Glover’s 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 company’s resident construction manager Des Rees. During his formative stages at Lavalin Inc., Rees was replaced by Jim Aitken as Glover’s 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 Glover’s 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. Glover’s 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 Glover’s 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 plaintiff’s 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 plaintiff’s 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 plaintiff’s testimony because he is not credible can be far fetched had been that the plaintiff had not accepted temporary layoff status. The defendant’s action denied him the opportunity of enjoying the full benefit of the contract.

Determination of this is not hinged on the plaintiff’s 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 plaintiff’s 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 plaintiff’s 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 employee’s services in a company can be terminated if he is found to have committed serious fraud or engaged in misappropriation.

The plaintiff’s 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 Procor’s 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.

Uniglobe’s 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 Vrana’s 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.

Turner’s letter to Beth shows that she misrepresented Beth’s 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 Laundry’s 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)

Employment regulations

Labor issues in the United Arab Emirates are regulated by Federal Law Regulating Labor Relations. Introduced in 1980, these regulations were subsequently amended in 1981, 1985, and 1986. The Law is applicable to the territory of the UAE except for some of the Free Zones where specific regulations are in action, such as Jebel Ali (Al Tamimi & Company par. 1-2).

As Article 3 of the Law states, all personnel working on the premises of the UAE are subject to these regulations. The nationality of the employees is of no significance as the personnel can originate from the UAE or be an expatriate. There are, however, several categories exempting the personnel from the Law’s scope. These include:

1. Federal government employees and those hired by government departments;
2. Those employed in municipal organs and assorted public sector establishments operating on the national and local scale;
3. Those involved in nation-scale and local government projects;
4. Armed force, police, and security officers;
5. Domestic personnel, servants, etc.;
6. Those employed in the sphere of agriculture and grazing (with the exception of technical staff and agricultural product processing employees) (Al Tamimi & Company par. 3-7).

Another exception is a business partnership. Partners in business are not considered as employees. Consequently, they are not mandated to receive a labor card in the Ministry of Labor – an obligation extending to all personnel (especially immigrants) not listed among the exemptions. Partners, specifically the foreign ones, are funded by the business they are partnered with. At that, the partner’s status will be that of an investor rather than personnel; the partners are obliged to make investments at least at a minimum level.

However, should the partner be registered as an employee in addition to their partnership status, they will be regarded as one. These considerations also apply to the personnel members working on a commission basis, regardless of whether they are partners to the establishment of hiring them (Employment Issues par. 5).

Free zones, such as Jebel Ali and Dubai Airport, have their own regulations to govern labor relations. Although the contract agreements originating from these zones are, naturally, the coinage of the zones’ regulations, their provisions must be consistent with the Law applicable nationwide. The wages, benefits, refurbishments, and other monetary expenses to provide for the employees are the free zones’ employers to avail. Such personnel, however, are provided for on condition that their dues and any payments after the agreement is ended are secured. In case a disagreement arises, the free zone personnel have the right to demand a court trial in accordance with the Law, despite the fact that the free zone establishments are sponsoring them (Howse et al. 266).

The Law accounts for every aspect of relationships existing between the employer and the personnel. The scope of coverage includes, for instance, conditions for employment, contract agreements and their termination, age- and gender-related restrictions, recording and filing, payroll, labor hours, leaves, benefits, compensations, penalties, condition safety, social support and medical care (including refurbishments for occupation-related disease and injuries), etc. The Law also prohibits the assemblage of labor unions.

The Law is enforced by the Ministry of Labor. With the exemptions stated above, it applies to all personnel employed on the territory of the UAE. Local courts have the power to litigate issues related to labor. However, because it acts as an enforcement agent, disputes on that matter should be considered by the Ministry.

Foreign labor employment

Considering that the UAE possesses an extremely vast base of multicultural human resources, the employers are put to face specific challenges related to such an environment, in addition to the difficulties common for all work givers.

The Federal Law Regulating Labor Relations has the employment of foreign workers as one of the aspects of labor governance. Firstly, for a business to be established within the UAE, the enterprise should register with the DNR (The Department of Naturalization and Residency) and the Ministry of Labor. These steps are taken so that the establishments can outsource and hire any human resources needed from both within the borders of the UAE and abroad.

If this business is established on the premises of a free zone, the procedural nuances differ. An establishment registered in the free zone should make a connection with the authorities of this zone to obtain visas and work permissions for the personnel. In most cases, the connection will be established and maintained between corresponding departments of the free zone authorities and the Ministry of Labor (Oxford Business Group 296).

Employment visa and residence permit are the documents necessary for a foreign employee to reside and work on the territory of the Emirates. If the LLC in question is headquartered in the mainland, its management is obliged to view and process these documents. If the employer is free zone-based, the corresponding department of its authority is tasked with processing. The documents are sponsored by the employer, which, again, should have a registration with the Ministry or a free zone authority.

The establishment of the free zones, as such, is known to facilitate human capital from abroad. For that sake, the regulations operable within the free zones are more flexible and differ from the mainland Labor Law to a certain extent. For instance, organizations such as DIFC (Dubai International Financial Center) are not legally obliged to provide a probation period for the workers. There is a recommended seven-day term in case the period specified in the contract is 3 months or less, a one-month term when the employment period is anywhere between 30 days and 5 years, and a 3-month term for an arrangement lasting 5 years or longer.

However, the recommendatory character of these terms subsumes the parties can agree for a different probationary period. Another aspect the employer and the employee can agree upon is the working hours: the mandated as 48 hours a week can be extended or cut with both parties’ consent. The free zone establishments calculate the ESG payments in much the same manner as the Law applied in the mainland. The law covering these zones, however, cannot allow for the payment to be cut if the worker commences the departure-related procedures. Moreover, the free zone employment law does not include any specific circumstances justifying summary dismissal.

The free zone employer can dismiss an employee with the cause for termination present. In other words, the law relies firmly on the employer’s reasoning, which is another demonstration of the law’s flexibility. Additionally, the free zone law has very clear specifications on the subject of discrimination, explicitly prohibiting any of it based on gender, socio-economic status, ethnicity, age, religious convictions, or disability (Hubbard and Gehle par. 6).

In case an employee with no legal right to work on the premises of the UAE or its free zones is employed, the work giver is punished by a fine or jail term.

Employers’ and employees’ rights and duties

As part of the Emiratization program, it is the employers’ legal obligation to prefer the Emirati work force over the immigrants. Although the objective reality may differ from theory, the work givers cannot employ a non-UAE national where an Emirati employee could do the job. This duty of the employers is specifically applicable to the spheres of banking and insurance. The establishments that operate within these two spheres are required to meet yearly quotas for the number of UAE nationals employed (Toledo 40).

Other duties of the employers include the following. The work givers should provide the personnel with the employment contract, fixed working hours (maximum 8 hours daily), and payment for the overtime hours. Since 2014, the employers have a duty to provide the workers with health insurance covering the fundamental aspects of medical care. In case an employer has arbitrarily dismissed a worker, the latter should be provided with a refurbishment – an obligation for the employer to fulfil.

The rights of the employers include the following. The employers can terminate the contract on probationary period immediately when a delinquency or violation occurs; at that, the probation can last up to a half-year. An employer can reject a job applicant who refuses to undergo medical check-ups and alcohol and drug tests. They can also abstain from paying the employees when the latter are under post-termination covenants.

The employees’ duties are to adhere to the employers’ requirements concerning the compliance with the contract specifications. They must submit their applications and references to the Ministry or the relevant department of the free zone authorities for consideration. The employees have a duty to undergo medical check-ups and drug/alcohol tests (Howse et al., 265).

Their rights are somewhat more extensive. For one, they include being provided by the contract specifying the requirements they are supposed to follow, such as the parties’ names, the dates and statuses, the duration, the wages, work hours, vacations, sick leaves, vacation and sick payments, the probationary periods, disciplinary and grievance procedures, etc. Although the employer reserves the right to choose a UAE national instead of an immigrant worker, the employees have the right to non-discrimination based on gender, age, health and mental status, SES, and marital status.

The immigrant employees have a right to have their visas and residence permits sponsored by the employers. In relation to the working hours, no underage employee is obliged to work an 8-hour shift. Adults have a right to rest and pray during their breaks. At that, the restrictions concerning rest and breaks are compulsory. The payment for the overtime work is a right granted to all employees, although the calculations may differ. Concerning the leaves and absence, the employees have a right to yearly and sick leave.

The employees are not entitled to leaves other than these but the right to discuss the absence with the employer and come to an agreement on a specified period of absence time is permissible. Concerning the intellectual property (the items and techniques invented by the employees), the workers can claim the right to this property on some conditions, namely, when the invention (either an item or activity) is not within this employee’s scope of work or is usable within the employers’ scope of business. The latter condition can serve as a viable explanation of the resources being used for the invention (Howse et al. 260-269).

Works Cited

Al Tamimi & Company. “UAE Labor Law.” n.d. Web.

Employment Issues in the United Arab Emirates. 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: Latham & Watkins, 2014. Print.

Howse, Matthew, Walter Ahrens, Sabine Smith-Vidal, and Mark Zelek. Labour & Employment in 39 Jurisdictions Worldwide. London, UK: Getting the Deal Through, 2014. Print.

Hubbard, Alison, and Björn Gehle. “Employment issues in The United Arab Emirates.” Out-Law.com. Pinsent Masons LLP. 2012. Web.

Oxford Business Group. The Report: Dubai 2014. Dubai, OAE: Oxford Business Group, 2014. Print.

Toledo, Hugo. “The political economy of emiratization in the UAE.” Journal of Economic Studies 40.3 (2013): 39-53. Print.

Introduction

Every business unit would always envision working in an environment that is peaceful, orderly and law abiding. Law in business is very important. No single business can succeed in an environment that lacks clear laws and regulations. In a business environment, there are many entities. The business itself is the first entity, which is distinct from the owner considered to be another entity. Other entities are related to the business in one way or the other.

Employees are very important part of every organization. According to Kongolo (2008), employees are important assets in every organization. A clear relationship should exist between the employees and the firm. As stated above, a business unit is an entity and when one is employed in the business. This means that there must be some specified relationship between the entity and the employee. There are various occasions where there arise disagreements between the business and the employees. The employee should always feel that the firm is fair. Furthermore an employee should acknowledge the fact that his or her effort is appropriately rewarded. In this regard, an employee should note that he or she is taken care of within the firm. The firm should also be comfortable with the employee and feel that the amount it is paying to the employee as salary or wages is dutifully earned.

Because of this necessity, the government has developed laws that would ensure that both parties have their interests taken care of without violating the interest of others. This paper seeks to analyze employment laws and determine how they help in ensuring that both the employer and the employee get what they deserve without infringing on the rights of the other.

Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA)

This law became effective in August 15, 1993 as a federal law that ensured that employees were entitled to annual leave or an emergency leave as may be appropriate. It was reviewed in January 16, 2009.

The Provisions of the Law and Its Importance to the Management Team of a Limited Liability

This law states that all employees are entitled to job-protected leave for specified medical or family reasons for a maximum period of twelve working days in a period of one month. The leave should be fully paid and the reasons for this leave can be based on maternity. Hence the need for parental care, adoption of a child, care of employee’s child, spouse, or parent with serious health complications, or any other qualifying reasons are justifiable reasons for applying the leave.

Need for the Management to Comply with the Provisions of the Law

The management has all the reasons to comply with this provision because it would not only attract litigation if violated but also serious employee dissatisfaction. When the management fails to comply with this law, the employees would see it as an unfriendly management. Their morale would be reduced and this might lower their productivity.

The Penalties for Noncompliance with the Provisions of the Law

The firm can face litigation for failure of compliance with this law. Such a firm can be forced to pay the concerned employee damages, besides allowing the employee the required paid leave. This would not only harm the firm financially, but also its reputation. It would negatively market the firm.

The Applicability of the Law to Employees and Independent Contractors

The law is applicable to employees. For an independent contractor, it has individual employees to whom the law will be applicable. The contractor in this case would be considered an employer.

Recommendations to Barbara’s Bakery about Whether to Hire Employees or Independent Contractors

It would be recommended that Barbara’s Bakery hire employees directly other than hiring independent contractors. Although it would be easier to avoid conflicts with employees leading to litigation, it is more expensive to hire an independent contractor. Hiring employees directly also gives the firm direct authority to negotiate with employees on how their leave would be implemented.

Application of the Law

This law applies to any employee, whether on part-time or full-time basis, as long as the employee has been working with the firm for at least twelve months. The essence of this law is to ensure that in cases of emergency, employees do not lose their pay because they had to be away from their workplaces.

Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA)

This law was enacted to help protect the aging population who were faced with discrimination in employment, as many American firms were keen to hire young individuals from colleges who were considered more flexible, creative and innovative and technologically advanced.

The Provisions of the Law and Its Importance to the Management Team of a Limited Liability

The law provides that under no circumstance shall an employer discriminate an employee based on his age. This would lead to avoidance of offering employment opportunity or offering remuneration or any other general treatment that may result in any form of segregation.

The Penalties for Noncompliance with the Provisions of the Law

It is very important that a firm adhere to this law because failure to do so would result to serious penalties. The law may fine the employee for breaking the law, apart from the possibility of forcing it to hire the employee despite the fact that the firm might have filled the post with someone else.

The Law’s Applicability to Employees and Independent Contractors

This law is based on age. As such, it would not be applicable to independent contractors. It is strictly based on employees. In this case, the independent contractor would be considered an employee and would need to comply with this law as well.

Recommendations to Barbara’s Bakery about Whether to Hire Employees or Independent Contractors

In the current competitive business environment, every business unit would want to ensure that it hires effective and very flexible employees who are always able to beat the expected deadlines for the firm to realize its objectives. As such, it would be very appropriate that the firm assesses its own employees and hires them directly instead of hiring a contractor for this job.

Application of the Law

This law is applicable to any employee, irrespective of the specification of the employment. It species that during the process of hiring employees, the firm must make every effort to ensure that there is no any form of discrimination, especially based on age. Once the firm employs an individual, the law prohibits discriminative actions that may be mated out to an employee based on his or her age.

Conclusion

There are laws that guide the relationship between the employer and employees. These laws exist to ensure that both sides remain fair to the other and none of them takes the advantage of its position to oppress the other. As such, every firm, such as Barbara’s Bakery, has the obligation to comply with them or risk litigation. Employees also have their role to play in this scenario and should they fail to observe it then they too will have to face the consequences of the law. When all the parties involved follow the laid down rules and regulations, the business environment would be very friendly and fruitful.

References

Kongolo, T. (2008). Unsettled International Intellectual Property Issues. Bedfordshire: Kluwer Law International.

Lisa, G. & Amy, D. (2006).The Essential Guide to Federal Employment Laws. California: Nolo.

The City Law School, (2008). Employment Law in Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.

Principles that Underpin Employment Law in the UK

The employment laws currently in use in the United Kingdom can be traced back to the 14^th century when the government of the United Kingdom started introducing laws to help define the relationship between the employer and the employees (Pyzdek & Keller 2014). The employment laws, as defined in the Acts, common law, Regulations, and equity are underpinned on the principle that employees are human beings and must be treated as such in the workplace. These laws are meant to define how employees, employers, and trade unions should relate to ensuring that the workplace environment is conducive for the employees and employers. These laws define the rights and freedoms of the employees and employers, and circumstances under which employees are allowed to take industrial action against the employer. The guiding principle is that employees should be given the dignity they deserve without being subjected to a workplace environment that is punitive in nature.

Principles of Law and how it applies in my Organisation

Accessing employment rights

It is important to look at the principles of law as it applies in an organizational setting in different cases. Accessing employment rights was designed to ensure that companies do not employ discriminative policies when hiring new employees. It was based on the principle that every person has a right to employment as long as he or she has the right qualifications needed for that particular job. Employment status and work status helps in defining the position of an employee within an organization and the responsibilities he or she is expected based on the employment contract (Waal 2013). Continuity of employment was based on the principle that one should always be assured of the security of his or her job. It seeks to eliminate cases of abrupt and unjustified retrenchments. Immigration rights, on the other hand, are meant to protect the rights of immigrants working locally in the United Kingdom. In my current organization, these policies are important in protecting the interest of both foreign and local employees from oppressive managerial decisions. I would strongly advise my organization to observe these laws and regulations to avoid cases where this firm issued by its employees.

Contracts of employment

Contracts of employment, especially the issue of establishing and changing contracts are very critical processes that managers must be keen on when undertaking to avoid any lawsuits at a future date. The express and implied terms must be clear in such contracts (Shields, Brown, & Kaine 2015). For instance, when the contract expressly states that employees should avoid smoking within the firm’s premises it should be clear to them that the organization prohibits any action that may harm other employees. The employees should understand the spirit behind every written statement of major terms and conditions. It should be clear to them why these terms and conditions are set within the organization and how all stakeholders stand to benefit.

Discrimination law

The United Kingdom has very strict laws about discrimination. Discrimination based on gender, marital status, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, religion, or such other demographical factors is strictly forbidden in the country. In my organization, the management has a responsibility to ensure that its internal policies are in line with the labor laws that prohibit any form of discrimination. Management policies should not be seen to be discriminative in any way. The management should also come up with organisational policies that can protect employee-employee discrimination. Ex-offenders and part-time workers should also be treated with equal respect without any form of prejudice. These policies are meant to protect employees who may otherwise be discriminated against because of things beyond their personal control.

Dismissal law

The principle underpinning the dismissal law must be clearly understood by any organization that has legally hired employees. It holds that when one has to be dismissed, there must be a just cause for that and it must be done humanely. Unfair or wrongful dismissal is illegal in the United Kingdom (Shoemaker & Sigler 2014). Cases of redundancy payments or constructive dismissal may arise in an organization. However, the management is strongly advised to ensure that cases of unjustified dismissal are eliminated. There must be a good reason for one to be eliminated.

Health and safety

The United Kingdom has laws that govern employees’ health and safety when they are in the workplace. The law prohibits individuals (whether in top leadership or not) from inflicting physical injury on other employees. Anyone who attacks a colleague is held criminally responsible for their actions and legal actions must be taken against them. The management of the firm is expected to act swiftly against such individuals. Personal injury sustained in the workplace should be appropriately compensated. The management is expected to put measures in place to help protect employees from such injuries. The law also requires employers to respect working time regulations as a way of protecting the interest of their employees.

Wages and salaries

Employment laws in the United Kingdom also define wages and salary issues that employers must respect. The National Minimum Wage Act of 1998 defines what employers should give their employees at a bare minimum based on their age. The law, which was revised in 2014, sets the minimum wage at £6.50 for adults who are over 21 years (Trim & Lee 2014). My organisation must understand that labor laws prohibit unlawful deductions of the wages of employees. The law demands that the pay should be equal to the work done. Issus such as payment of statutory sick pay and fully paid holidays cannot be ignored by my organization. They are issues that can lead to litigation if they are not handled as per the set laws and regulations.

Transfer of Undertakings

Transfer Undertakings of 2006 are regulations in the United Kingdom meant to help in implementing the European Union Business Transfer Directive (Oakland 2014). It stipulates conditions under which an employer can dismiss an employee. It also demands that employees must clearly define the terms and conditions of employment to their workers. Principles guiding consultation and continuity of employment in transfer situations should also be made clear to the employee as demanded in this regulation.

Family-friendly employment law

The principle underpinning family-friendly laws is that workers’ interests should be protected to ensure that their working environment is as sustainable as possible. The United Kingdom requires employers to have insurance plans for their employees. That is why employees’ right to primary care must be respected. Similarly, paternity, maternity, and adoptive rights must also be taken into consideration by the organization. The law also defines regulations regarding anti-natal care, health, and safety of pregnant employees, parental leave, and time off for family emergencies (Petraq 2015). Employees also have the right to request flexible working in case the family issues that justify such a request.

Confidentiality issues

The confidentiality laws as based on the principle that employees are entitled to their privacy, especially when they share sensitive information with their employers. The interception of communication is illegal unless there is a legal justification for it to happen. Data protection laws also protect the employer to ensure that employees do not share sensitive information about the firm to third parties. Both the employee and the employer are expected to protect a firm’s trade secrets as much as possible. Law on whistleblowing was designed to protect employees who reveal the dark secrets of their employers such as illegal activities going on in the firm.

Collective employment laws

The organization will also need to understand and respect collective employment laws as stated in various legal documents in the United Kingdom. Employees’ freedom of association, the right to industrial action, and collecting bargaining is clearly defined in the law. The organization must also respect the rights of trade union officials, consultation rights, and the right of employees to be accompanied by trade union officials. According to Monden and Minagawa (2015), collective employment laws were designed to ensure that employees can form trade unions to protect their interests. Although some of the careers in the modern workplace environment require individual employees to champion for their own interests, the United Kingdom still allows employees to unionize if they feel that they can have a better position to bargain for their rights.

Legal Implications of Decisions, Plans, or Proposals in the Employment Field

I had situations where I had to advise some of my colleagues on actions that had significant legal implications not only to the firm but also to them as employees. The first incident was on handling customer complaints. One of the customers had come back claiming that the product that he bought from the firm was of substandard quality and had caused injury to one of his children. The client wanted the firm to acknowledge the fact that the product was substandard and to find a way of replacing it to avoid any legal action. The colleague, acting in the interest of the firm, wanted to accept the firm’s responsibility and to replace the product to avoid any legal actions. However, the client had no official document showing that he had purchased the product from the firm. He only brought with him a piece of the product that he claimed had broken. It was not easy ascertaining if the brand was ours.

I warned him against taking that decision because of the legal ramifications. Such a decision would have meant that the firm acknowledges selling a faulty product to the client. It would have validated any lawsuits against the firm. The management would not have spared him for having taken such a wrong decision. We demanded proper documentation from this client. He promised to come back with the documents accompanied by his lawyer. However, we never saw him again. It is proof that this man wanted to scam our firm. Following this incident, I advised the marketing manager to send a memo to the sales officers and customer service employees on how to deal with such situations. The evidence is shown in the memo in the appendix.

In another incident, one of our employees was standing in for a friend who had to attend to a personal issue without informing the supervisor. The colleague had completed his shift but decided to stand in for the other friend who was to report to work late. They were both working in the production department. Because of fatigue, the colleague failed to follow safety procedures set in this department and sustained a serious injury while standing in for the friend. The firm paid all the hospital bills and granted him three weeks of fully paid leave. However, when he came back he started considering suing the firm for a bigger compensation because of the injury. I advised him that such a move might have a serious impact on his career at this firm. He was very likely going to lose the case because he was at work illegally based on the rules set by the production department. It was also his mistake that he sustained such an injury because he failed to follow the set safety procedures. As such the firm would not be liable for his own mistakes at the firm. In fact, the firm had demonstrated its loyalty when his medical bills were fully paid without the management blaming him for the injuries sustained. He realized that the firm had acted in good faith and that it was his turn to be faithful to the firm. He decided not to sue the company after that discussion.

Actions in Workplace Scenarios Where Employment Regulations Applies

The management of this company must be careful when taking actions in the workplace scenario where employment regulations of the United Kingdom apply. The first case is the recruitment and selection. The law prohibits this firm from being discriminative when hiring its employees. As such, the human resource department should try to ensure that the primary basis of hiring its employees is qualification. Hiring should not be seen as being based on race, gender, religion, or any other demographical factor that might be considered discriminative. When coming up with terms and conditions of employment, the management must take into consideration the existing regulations as defined in the employment laws. The organizational policies should not be in conflict with national laws.

It is the responsibility of this company, as defined in the employment law, to ensure that the working environment is conducive and sustainable to the employees. Employees should feel safe in their workplaces. Safety standards set by the government should be reflected in the planning of the working environment. As Madjid (2014) notes, it is also in the interest of the management to ensure that the performance of the employees is properly managed. However, managing performance should not mean that employees are subjected to undue pressure that may cause them stress at work. Another critical issue that the management must put into consideration is the communication and involvement of the employees. As per the existing employment laws in the United Kingdom, a firm is at liberty to come up with a communication system that it considers suitable for its operations. However, the chosen model of communication should not limit the ability of the employees to communicate with top managers, especially on issues that affect their operations. The firm is also at liberty to come up with appropriate plans of how to involve its employees on various projects. However, care should be taken to ensure that the chosen plan is not in any way discriminative or oppressive to the employees.

The United Kingdom has laws and regulations that define the minimum wage that can be given to an employee. As such, minimum pay and reward must be based on the set regulations to avoid any legal action against the firm. The law also requires organizations hiring people who are below 18 years to be responsible for their education. It means that training and development may be a requirement in case some of the firm’s employees are under 18 years. Currently, the firm only hires people of legal age. It means that training and development can be designed based on terms and conditions that this firm considers appropriate. When it comes to working allocation, the firm has the liberty to organize its employees in a manner that it considers would be most productive. However, Dimon (2013) advises that it should not be done in a discriminative way. The firm should not be seen to be oppressive to a section of its employees based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, age, or such other related demographical factors. Retirement management should also be done as per the law. Currently, the legal age of retirement for men in the United Kingdom is 65 years. It is expected that this firm will respect this regulation and avoid cases of forcing its employees into early retirement without a just cause.

Organizational Response When Legal Action is Anticipated or Taken

In the recent past, I have undertaken 2 disciplinary investigations within this company. The first disciplinary investigation took place about two years ago. One of the employees was accused of non-discriminative laws as set by the organization. One of the young Indian female employees complained that a particular White male was constantly making fun of her about her race and gender in their workstations. The lady also complained that this man was making unwanted advances that were making her very uncomfortable. She tried addressing the issue by talking to the man but he has failed to respect her. It was reported that one day he spanked her at the back inappropriately in front of other employees. This was a serious case that this firm had to address conclusively to avoid being seen as condoning such discriminative acts. We called in several other employees who had witnessed such acts to help ascertain the claims. We were able to confirm that the male employee was indeed acting inappropriately with the girl. After consulting the aggrieved party, it was agreed that the man had to be transferred from that department immediately. Given that it was the first time he was committing such a mistake, he was given the last warning and informed that future complaints may result in his dismissal from the firm. The outcome of this investigation was positive because both parties were satisfied with the decision that was taken by the management. We were able to avoid any legal action that would have resulted from the abuse were it not addressed appropriately.

The second incident involved a team of salesmen who were overpricing the products of the firm when they deliver products to clients. Our company offers some of its products on the online platform. After making online payments, it is the responsibility of the firm to ensure that the products are delivered to the client’s doorsteps at no extra cost. This is an offer and it is clearly stated in our terms and conditions. However, it was brought to our attention that some of the people responsible for delivering the products charge clients extra fees claiming it is for the delivery. The fee they charge goes to their pockets. We talked to some customers whose products were delivered by these individuals and they all confirmed that they had to pay for the delivery. The firm risked legal action. As a result, all the affected clients were contacted and the fee they had paid for delivery promptly refunded. The employees who were involved in this scam were dismissed and handed over to the police for a criminal investigation to be conducted. The evidence of this investigation is shown in the letter below written to the government authorities.

Preparations, Presentations, and Settling of Employment Tribunal Cases

Employment tribunal cases may arise in an organizational setting and it is important to address such cases in the most appropriate way possible to avoid negative impacts that may arise from them. I have witnessed such cases spiral out of control. I would strongly advise my organization to be very careful when handling employment tribunal cases. The United Kingdom’s labor laws define the procedures and rules of evidence needed in such cases. I would strongly recommend that before taking such cases to court, an internal tribunal should be set up to find a solution locally within the firm. The management should engage the aggrieved parties to try and find a way of finding a remedy. In case the management is one of the parties in the disputes hence cannot preside over the case, then mediation should be the next option of solving the dispute without incurring a significant financial burden.

The labor union leaders may be called in to mediate the case if both parties are convinced that there will be no bias. In case mediation fails to yield the desired result, then the next option will be arbitration. Both parties must understand that the decision of the arbiter is legally binding. If both parties agree on any of the alternative means of solving the dispute, then they should focus on having a win-win discussion. Both parties should be committed to finding a solution that would balance their interests instead of being unfair to the other party (Bugdol & Jedynak 2014). Litigation should be the last option in case all other alternative dispute resolution methods fail to yield the desired results. In case it is decided that the only option is to seek legal attention from the courts, then the management of this firm must be ready to defend itself. It should understand the rules of evidence as a way of proving the firm’s innocence in such cases.

Keeping Up To Date with Development in Employment Law

Employment law keeps on changing and it is the responsibility of the management of this company to keep up to date with these developments. As Barsalou (2015) says, failing to know about changes in employment laws may force a firm to pay fine for actions that would have been taken at no cost at all. One of the best ways of keeping up to date in employment laws is to regularly go through the newspapers. Most of the major employment legislation is often carried in the major dailies because of the interest of the public. The management can also make a habit of getting new legislation regarding employment law from the government printer on a monthly basis. The human resource department can visit the government printer on a monthly basis in order to know if an employment bill is already published or passed into law within the country. It will be the best way of ensuring that any new legislation regarding employment is well known to the management. The knowledge will help the firm to realign its internal operations and procedures with the existing laws in the country.

One of the anticipated developments in employment law that may have a significant impact on this firm is the retirement age. As Demartini (2013) says, the retirement age in the United Kingdom has been on the rise over the recent past. Currently, men are expected to retire at 65 years while women retire at 63 years. However, there are new proposals that may soon be implemented that change the retirement age. By 2018, the retirement age for women is expected to be 65 years. Longoni (2014) says that there are plans to increase the retirement age to 67 years soon after. This is specifically so because of the growing population of the elderly in society. However, this new development may have a significant impact on this company based on the activities employees are expected to do. Most of the activities in the production, marketing, and procurement departments are physical jobs that require energetic people.

Reference List

Barsalou, M 2015, The quality improvement field guide: achieving and maintaining value in your organisation, CRC Press, Chicago.

Bugdol, M & Jedynak, P 2014, Integrated management systems, Springer, New York.

Demartini, C 2013, Performance management systems: design, diagnosis and use, Springer Science & Business Media, New York.

Dimon, R 2013, Enterprise performance management done right: an operating system for your organisation, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Longoni, A 2014, Sustainable operations strategies: the impact of human resource management and organisational practices on the Triple Bottom Line, Springer, New York.

Madjid, T 2014, Handbook of research on organisational transformations through Big Data analytics, IGI Global, New York.

Monden, Y, & Minagawa, Y 2015, Lean management of global supply chain, World Scientific, New York.

Oakland, J 2014, Total Quality Management and operational excellence: text with cases, Routledge, New York.

Petraq, P 2015, Automated enterprise systems for maximising business performance, IGI Global, New York.

Pyzdek, T, & Keller, P 2014, The Six Sigma handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Shields, J, Brown, M & Kaine, S 2015, Managing employee performance & reward: concepts, practices, strategies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Shoemaker, D & Sigler, K 2014, Cybersecurity: engineering a secure information technology organisation, Cengage Learning, Stamford.

Trim, P & Lee, L 2014, Cyber security management: a governance, risk and compliance framework, Ashgate Publishing, Burlington.

Waal, A 2013, Strategic performance management: a managerial and behavioural approach, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

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.