Employee Categories
Des and Sarah Cole are the owners of a wine merchants Store. The staffs at the store are highly knowledgeable efficient but recently they are facing some problems regarding them. In the recent past this employment issues have been a point of concern for Des and Sarah. The employees are not happy with the decisions that had been taken by their employers. In this regard, the employees are threatening Des and Sarah stating that they will take legal action if they do not pay for the sums by way of settlement (Blanpain & Bisom-Rapp,2014).
The employers believe that they have acted fairly from their side and according to them; they have offered the maximum that could have been offered.
The UK employment law has three main sources:
- Common law
- Statute
- European law
It states that that there are three main categories of worker in UK.
- The self employed
- Agency workers
- Employs
Self-employed: self-employed are those people who have independently started their own business. They are only responsible upon themselves to take any decision regarding their own business (Chemerinsky, 2016)
Agency Workers: A company is hiring some people and then that company surprise them to another company. Though this company is working as an agency more like an intermediary, still the employment act states that it is liable towards the employees.
Employees: Most of the people in UK direct employees of a company the basic common law and statutory employment protection policy applies every employee regardless position in the company (Twomey,2012).
In this case, study, we can see that it is mentioned that Diane slipped from the staircase that is between the shop and the stock room. So it can be assumed that Diane injured herself while working, so it becomes the responsibility of the employer to burden the medical expenses that is being incurred her. It also comes under the duty of the employer to see that the accident is being noted in the book of accident
It is upon the duty of the employer to make adjustment so that the employee can work dismissal should be the last resort (Dau-Schmidt, Finkin & Covington, 2016). Moreover, as we can see that the employee got injured while working so it is the sole responsibility of the employee to see that the employee has the full support from them.
Graham and Jack are two employees of the wine shop mentioned in the case. As Diane met with an accident, Graham took over with Jack. They were found to have importing wine by themselves and selling them at the shop (Denza, 2016) .According to the employment, law before firing an employee they should be given proper chance to defend themselves and it is to be seen whether they are wrong on their part. The grievousness’ of the misconduct is to be seen and judged. If it is the first misconduct on the part of the employee, in that case he should be given another chance with a warning note, depending upon the misconduct. If the employee is suspended before hearing to them, they should be given the pay for the particular time.
Employer’s Responsibility in case of employee injury
In this case, what graham and jack did is very serious in nature but on the other hand the amount of the sold wine is very petty and it is there first misconduct so they could be given a second chance, but it solely depends upon the employer to decide. We can see that jack was later reinforced to the work committing the same crime whereas graham was not. Again that was somewhat discriminating in nature that may raise a question (Epstein & Walk, 2012).
Constructive dismissal
Only employees who are being terminated or dismissed by the employer can claim constructive dismissal. However, in case if an employee resigns against the breach of contract on the part of the employer in that case it can also be taken as dismissed. In this type of dismissal, it is to be seen whether there is any breach of contract on the part of the employer (Werle & Jessberger,2014).
Sex Discrimination
Sex Discrimination is of two types direct and indirect. It is mentioned that no employees can be discriminated under the grounds of sex, marital status, and maternity. The employer does not have any grounds to disqualify them until and unless it has to do with their performance of their work. Sexual harassment at work is also comes under this heading. Indirect sexual discrimination is also prohibited under United Kingdom employment law (Hanami,2013).
Public Interest Disclosure
Public interest disclosure act 1998 states that when an employee discloses some illegal activity that is being carried out within the business, these acts protects the employees from detrimental treatment from their employees
Unfair dismissal
Unfair dismissal comes in to effect if the employers have dismissed the employee under the grounds of maternity leave, for protest against unfair deduction of wages. If the employee believes that the dismissal is not fair on the part of employer, in that case he can claim under this section.
It is mentioned that employees cannot be forced to work continuously without a leave. If the employees are forced to do so, in that case it will attract this section (Kadish, Schulhofer & Barkow 2016).
In this, we can see that Diane was injured during the working hours, while working and within the premises of her office. Therefore, in this case we can see that the employer has to carry the liability. It is their duty to give all the medical expenses that Diane has incurred. It is to be seen that the accident is registered in the book of accidents. Further, the employee cannot be dismissed and until she recover and the remuneration is to be paid by the employer. In this case, Diane faced a severe injury and she is having problem in turning or moving her head that can prove almost impossible for her to work. Dismissal should be the last option, before that it is to be seen whether if any kind of special arrangements could be done for the employee.
Misconduct by employees – Graham and Jack
In this case the employer Des and Sarah have tried their best to help Diane though there is nothing mentioned about paying her medical expenses. They have not dismissed her until she recovered. They went to meet her to see if she could join in the future and they found that Diane was in no condition to work. They further offer her one-year salary as compensation. From the scenario we can see that Des and Sarah have tried their best to help Diane and did not dismissed her right way (Kersley et al.,2013)
In this scenario, we can see that Graham and jack were selling their own imported wines. When the employers came to know about this fact, they sacked them without any kind of notice. Though they were given a chance to defend themselves but the misconduct was proved as they confessed. Though the misconduct was very bad in nature but had they neither had any such record in the past nor was, the amount that was involved very huge (Less that 100 pounds each). On the other hand, Jack was given a second opportunity, whereas Graham was not. This meant discrimination amongst them (Larson, 2017).
The misconduct was very severe and employer has the right of dismissal. They also gave their employees a chance to prove themselves. Though they have not issued any noticed period but under such circumstance where the employers reputation and are at stake and conduct is so wrong it can be taken as a special situation.
In this case, we came to know that Kelly informed the employer that about the misconduct that graham and Jack is doing. Kelly car was vandalized and he suspect that Graham and Jack are behind this. She claimed compensation for his car from her employer. The employer are in no way liable to compensate for the car, moreover it is not proved that Graham and Jack were vandalizing the car. Des and Sarah never dismissed Kelly neither they created a situation where Kelly is forced to leave the job. Neither they did something that created any kind of sexual discrimination. Kelly left her job because she was not pleased with the decision of her employer. The charges that are put up against des and Sarah do not stand on this ground. Kelly continuing as the same way before and she did not face any kind of pressure from her employer (Mamorsky,2017).Therefore, I believe that Kelly does not have very strong grounds to prove these charges.
Misconduct by an employee – Kelly
In this case, Ralph Broom who was a semi-retired employee was asked to join employment on temporary basis, as Diane and Graham were not working currently. The contract between Ralph and the employer that mentioned that Ralph would not have to work more than 48 hours a week was broken as he was not allowed taking leave. Moreover, when he protested on this he was sacked over phone without a notice period. This conduct was wrong on the employer’s part. As it is mentioned in the employment act that every employee has the right to take leave in a week and cant is forced to work more than 48 hours at a stretch in a week. It is also mentioned in the employment act that no employee can be dismissed without a notice period (Milgrim & Bensen,2016).
Ralph was on temporary basis and the contract was for a short period of time and not permanent in nature. In that case, it is upon the employer to decide when his work period will end.
In the first situation where Diana is concerned, she should have been given a chance to come back to work as an employee. Some special arrangements should have been done which would have supported her and if then also she faced problem in doing day-to-day activities in the shop then she should have been asked to leave the organization upon receiving the compensation with a proper notice period (Posner,2014).
In the second situation where Graham who proved to be guilty of misconduct, in that case he should have been given a notice period. As it was his first misconduct, so he should have been given a verbal warning. As it is a common procedure to give verbal warning and then a written warning before termination someone from work (Prest & Prest, 2012).
In the third situation where Kelly asked for compensation for her car, which was vandalized, should have been dealt with way that is more sympathetic. As we know, that Kelly informed them about the wrongs being done by graham and Jack, which helped them in understanding the situation. Therefore, she should have been supported if not with the claim then may be helping her to launch a complaint with a police and more co-operations should have been shown from the side of the employer (Rosenbloom, 2014).
In the fourth situation, Ralph who was a semi-retired employee was asked to join the organization for a temporary period. Ralph who worked for continuous two weeks without any leave and when he protested he was sacked over phone. According to the employment law every employee should be given a notice period before being dismissed. It is also mentioned that the working period for a week should not exceed more than 48 hours and every employee should get a leave. Therefore, in this case, Ralph should have been given a leave and he should not have been dismissed without giving a proper notice period (Scott & Davis,2015).
Sacking of employee – Ralph Broom
In case of Diane, the employer has more responsibility than they have shown. As she was injured while working, she should be offered some more compensation and it is recommended that they solve this matter by going into a mutual agreement.
In case where Graham is concerned he should have been given a warning as it is his first misconduct. However, the significance of the conduct was very wrong in nature and if the employer thought of dismissing him then he should have been served a proper notice. Moreover, Jack who did the same misconduct was re-appointed where as Graham was not, this may create discrimination (Selwyn & Emir, 2014).
There is no-where mentioned it was disclosed by the employer that Kelly informed them about the misconduct that is being carried out by Graham and Jack and moreover it was also not proved that the car was damaged by them. So in this case the employer cannot be held liable for bearing the expenses of Kelly’s car. Moreover, Kelly left the job and she was not dismissed or in any way was forced to leave the job. They can talk with Kelly to make her understand about the situation and help her to pay some of the expenses that has been incurred to repair her car, which may be deducted from her salary monthly in small instalments, so that she can afford and does not have to feel the pinch of high expense.
Des and Sarah made a mistake to forcefully make Ralph work more than 48 hours a week without giving him any leave for consecutive two weeks. Moreover, they dismissed him over phone without any proper notice. So it is recommended to apologise to him and solve the situation mutual by re-appointing him at work (Shields et al., 2015).
Conclusion
In the above situations in some cases the allegations that were made against the employer is valid up to some extent and in some cases, it is not viable. The employer tried their best to handle the situations but being unaware about the rules and norms of the employment act, they did not follow the proper procedure. Therefore, it created a gap and an advantage for the employees to exploit and take actions pin pointing those mistakes that are being made by Des and Sarah. They should have been more cautious about the norms and should have taken the help of a solicitor before taking any decision.
References
Blanpain, R., & Bisom-Rapp, S. (2014). Global Workplace: International and Comparative Employment Law Cases and Materials. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Chemerinsky, E. (2016). Constitutional law. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Dau-Schmidt, K. G., Finkin, M., & Covington, R. (2016). Legal protection for the individual employee. West Academic.
Denza, E. (2016). Diplomatic Law 4E: Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Oxford University Press.
Epstein, L., & Walk, T. G. (2012). Constitutional Law: Rights. Sage.
Hanami, T. A. (2013). Labour law and industrial relations in Japan. Springer.
Kadish, S. H., Schulhofer, S. J., & Barkow, R. E. (2016). Criminal law and its processes: cases and materials. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Kersley, B., Alpin, C., Forth, J., Bryson, A., Bewley, H., Dix, G., & Oxenbridge, S. (2013). Inside the workplace: findings from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey. Routledge.
Larson, L. K. (2017). Employee Health–AIDS Discrimination (Vol. 10). Larson on Employment Discrimination.
Mamorsky, J. D. (2017). Employee Benefits Law: ERISA and Beyond. Law Journal Press.
Milgrim, R. M., & Bensen, E. E. (2016). Use of agreements to protect trade secrets in the employment relationship (Vol. 2). Milgrim on Trade Secrets.
Moran, R. T., Abramson, N. R., & Moran, S. V. (2014). Managing cultural differences. Routledge.
Posner, R. A. (2014). Economic analysis of law. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Prest, W., & Prest, W. R. (2012). William Blackstone: law and letters in the eighteenth century. Oxford University Press.
Rosenbloom, D. H. (2014). Federal service and the constitution: The development of the public employment relationship. Georgetown University Press.
Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2015). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural and open systems perspectives. Routledge.
Selwyn, N. M., & Emir, A. (2014). Selwyn’s law of employment. Oxford University Press, USA.
Shields, J., Brown, M., Kaine, S., Dolle-Samuel, C., North-Samardzic, A., McLean, P., … & Plimmer, G. (2015). Managing Employee Performance & Reward: Concepts, Practices, Strategies. Cambridge University Press.
Twomey, D. (2012). Labor and Employment Law: Text & Cases. Cengage Learning.
Werle, G., & Jessberger, F. (2014). Principles of international criminal law. OUP Oxford.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
