Rotational System Implementation
The General Manager at the Grace Fish & Game Company wishes to implement a rotational system of workers who would work for a stipulated period at one plant and then shift into the next designated plant after the completion of the same term. In order to determine the viability of implementing such a change the following conditions would have to be considered by the company (Stewart 2013):
- The training procedure for the different plants and if such a process forms a part of the employment contract of the workers.
- The training for the sales staff relating to their new mode of operation through ipads and if the same is a part of the employment contract.
- If under the contract of employment the employees have consented to such rotational work environments.
- The health and safety regulations relating to the operations at both plants must also be considered to ensure that the workers are safeguarded against abrupt accidents and injuries of the same kind.
Once the above factors are considered by the company they would have to further ensure that such a step in which the movement and rotation costs are paid for by the company would be financially feasible for the company (Blanpain and Bisom-Rapp 2014). If it is financially feasible the risks involved in changing the course of work in such an abrupt manner must also be considered.
In case the company faces opposition when implementing the same the company would have to assess the most effective way to change the employment conditions with a degree of flexibility which would be accepted by the employees.
In case of opposition the company would need a plan of action which would cater to the concerns of the employees (Painter and Holmes 2015). This can be curbed by implementing the following steps (Rudman 2013):
- Provision of safety and training staff would ensure that the equipment and procedures relating to the same are effectively undertaken.
- The staff can be offered bonuses based on their operations in the plants and the shift timings and rotation routines could be scheduled in a way that is agreeable for the staff.
- The staff can be offered comfortable transportation options. This would likely deter opposition against rotational shifts that require movement to different locations.
- The staff can also be assured medical insurance and other monetary incentives that are likely to deter opposition.
- The can also maintain a roster that records specific dates when employees would be available for such a rotational shift. Considering employee needs would deter opposition an amended course of employment.
The judgment in Woolworths Limited v Dawson [PR Q7716] 1 March 1999 the court laid down various cautionary steps that employers must take when rigidly enforcing a dress code (Howe, Hardy and Cooney 2013). One such limitation to enforcing a dress code is in relation to enforcement of a new dress code or uniform. When enforcing such an amendment to the standard employment contract the accepted standards that have been in practice among long standing employees of the organization must be considered. Employees who have served the organization for a considerable amount of time must have the right to continue dress as they have been through their course of employment.
It has been decided in the case of Grant v BHP Coal Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 42 that an employer may mandate his employees to undergo a medical examination (Gollan and Patmore 2013). However such an examination would not be mandatory unless the requirement of the employment profile specifically needs such an evaluation.
It has been decided in the judgment in CFMEU v North Goonyella Coal Mine Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1444 that an employer may direct his employees not to display union campaign material in the lunchroom. However the same would have certain limitations. If there is an ongoing collective bargaining process or there are valid employee grievances that must be discussed the employer would not ideally be able to restrict such a process.
Enforcing a Dress Code
It was held in the judgment in Thorne v Jura Australia Espresso Pty Ltd [2012] FWA 4954 that employers can direct employees to not access office computers in their personal but the same cannot be restricted when the employee is working on behalf of the company in his personal time and if files that he generally has access to needs to be accessed at during their personal time the same cannot be restricted by the employer.
- In the situation where Wayne verbally attacked Dean in front of the rest of the staff the same cannot amount to defamation unless it is established that accusations made by Wayne are not founded on strong evidence. In case the accusation and insinuations are deemed to be false there would be sufficient ground for a defamation claim.
- The designated driver for the staff did not bring the vehicle back after dropping off the people he was tasked with dropping off. Instead he took the vehicle for a drive and the same was not permissible under his course of employment. This would thus be a breach of his duties as the designated driver and a misuse of the vehicle given to him. Thus in this case the university can hold the driver liable to pay damages for breaching his obligations and duties under his employment contract.
- Representing the staff in poor light by taking pictures of them and publishing the same on social media would be a gross breach of privacy and thus would be illegal. This thus means that when such an act is undertaken and statements are made which project the university in a bad light would amount to defamation. The university would be entitled to pursue legal remedies for the same and may demand compensation for the detriment caused to its reputation.
- As established before if the accusations made by Dean are based on sufficient evidence the same would not amount to defamation as truth is a defense in an action for defamation. Thus depending on the factual accuracy of the accusations and insinuations made by Dean relating to Wayne are true they cannot be legally pursued as an act defaming Wayne. Thus in order to proceed with an action for defamation against Dean the university would have to first establish the degree of accuracy of the insinuations and accusations made by Wayne.
Dear all,
This is to inform you that from the next financial year the company will be implementing an “Ethical and Permissible use of social media” policy which all employees would be required to abide by. The company suggests that before the implementation of the new policy the employees should evaluate their degree of compliance with the policy at the present time. The policy is aimed at preventing unauthorized use of personal information into the public domain without the consent of an individual and/or the company. In case of such a publication the company stands to absolve itself from any responsibilities arising from the acts an individual who is in breach of the company’s policy. In light of the new policy the following points need to be clarified:
The company policy once implemented would impose a prohibition on the use of social media websites and their application extensions within the company’s premises of operation. This would thus mean that employees would not be allowed to use any form of social media communication medium to discuss or convey messages relating to the operations of the company. Moreover, the employees would not be allowed to communicate personal messages amongst themselves through social media within the confines of the workplace. The underlying rationale behind this is that the company had confidential information flowing through the organizational hierarchy if the same is leaked due to social media communication the same would have detrimental effect on the company. Moreover, in a professional environment the use of personal information of other employees or the management amounts to gross breach of privacy (Freedland et al. 2016). The policy does not extend to the use of social media at home however, it does apply when the same are used to public personal information of an employee of the company or the company.
All forms of social media that allow the independent publication of material without screening procedures. The sites mainly covered under the policy would be facebook, twitter and instagram. Each of these websites allow publication of texts and pictures and videos. Each of these can be used in ways that project the company and/or employees in a bad light and can adequately harm the reputation of the company and/or its employees. Further as mentioned above the company would not be taking responsibility for any information that is used by an employee to cause detriment to another.
Mandating Medical Examination
In the use of social media however, the personal and domestic lives of the employees would not be put under any form of scrutiny. This is because all employees have a right to privacy and unless publishing material that is covered by any act or any policy the employee would not be responsible for any form of damage caused. However, the policy would extend to any form of information that can be attributed to the employees or the operation of the company.
Use, disclosure or discussion regarding any confidential information relating to the company and its operations would be a breach of the company policy. Any photograph or video relating to an employee or taken within the confined of the company’s premises is absolutely banned. If any employee is aggrieved by any social media post of another employee and the same specifically pertains to the aggrieved individual it would be a breach of the company’s policy. The company also prescribes refraining from using the company’s letterhead or any such trademark that is the company’s property in any social media website without explicit approval of the company.
In case of a minor failure to observe the company’s mandate the company would impose a monetary fine in the form of a salary deduction. These would only be applicable in case the assessable damage caused is reasonably low.
In case an employee causes other employees to be aggrieved by their conduct on social media the company would initiate legal proceedings for damages. In case the complaint is withdrawn by the aggrieved employee a monetary fine would be imposed on the employee proportionate to the reasonable amount of damage which the company could have faced. The company is thus not bound to not initiate action if a complaint is withdrawn once it is made but the same would be based on the facts and circumstances of the case. In case the employee making the complaint wishes to pursue legal action the same would be endorsed by the company and may lead to a suspension of the employee till the dispute is successfully determined. The company reserves the right to terminate an employee in case the gravity of the complaint demands the same.
Release of confidential information of the company is a breach of duties to fidelity and loyalty and the company reserves all rights to suspend or terminate and employee for the same. The company would also initiate legal actions for damages based on the gravity of the information. The company would also be entitled to compensation proportionate to the value of the information released or the detriment caused by the employee. The company can also vary terms of employment and cause a reduction of remuneration and take other reasonable steps that would ensure future compliance with the policies of the company.
Reference list
Ali, F., 2013. A multi-level perspective on equal employment opportunity for women in Pakistan. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 32(3), pp.289-309.
Blanpain, R. and Bisom-Rapp, S., 2014. Global Workplace: International and Comparative Employment Law Cases and Materials. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Freedland, M., Bogg, A., Cabrelli, D., Collins, H., Countouris, N., Davies, A.C.L., Deakin, S. and Prassl, J. eds., 2016. The contract of employment. Oxford University Press.
Gollan, P.J. and Patmore, G., 2013. Perspectives of legal regulation and employment relations at the workplace: Limits and challenges for employee voice. Journal of Industrial Relations, 55(4), pp.488-506.
Howe, J., Hardy, T. and Cooney, S., 2013. Mandate, discretion, and professionalisation in an employment standards enforcement agency: An Antipodean experience. Law & Policy, 35(1-2), pp.81-108.
Painter, R. and Holmes, A., 2015. Cases and materials on Employment Law. Oxford University Press, USA.
Rudman, R., 2013. New Zealand Employment Law Guide (2013 edition). CCH New Zealand Limited.
Stewart, A., 2013. Stewart’s guide to employment law (Vol. 3). Sydney: Federation Press.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
