Problems At Softy Furnishings - Case Study Example

Problems At Softy Furnishings al Affiliation Background UK employment law embraces both collective labour law and individual employment law (Smith and Baker, 2013). Collective labour is trade union rights and employment law is the dismissal, or discrimination at work. According to Jones (2013), UK businesses have realized significant changes on employment in recent years. Restrictions on the freedom of contracted has reduced flexibility. The contract aspect on UK employment law has led to a greater or lesser extent increased paper, to wider jurisdiction of Tribunals to more applications to Tribunals to rising awards by Tribunals and thus to apprehension of trouble when considering to increase the staff of a small business (Cabrelli, 2014). Small businesses have struggled to keep up with a changing legislation as the common law changes. The incoming research will be investigating employment problems at Problems at Softy Furnishings Ltd. In this particular company, there can be two cases involved. The cases to be explored include the case between Abbie vs. Roz and the case between Roz and Dennis. Employment law deals with relationships between individual in a place where the majority of adults spend a significant proportion of the time namely the workplace. Schmidt (2009) believes that although this generally an arena of private law, there is ample scope for human rights arguments which have become effective in the workplace. The application of the HRA in this context seems particularly effective given that the areas of private law, there are unequal balance of power between employer and employee, which can be seen as similar to the relationship between the individual and the jurisdiction (Jones, 2013). For that reason, a number of laws are designed to protect the individual the employer, which regulates the terms of both the contractual bargain and protective statutes themselves. Abbie vs. Roz The issue with Abbie is self management. Largely, the company is justified on the choice of technology it decides choose. In fact, to that effect there lacks a resounding common law. The law of employment is based on common law with many statutes modifying the legal situation. According to Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust [2009], before a court can intervene in a dispute it must have before it a legally enforceable contract of employment1. Thus, in examining Abbie’s case, we are required to understand the contracts of services that she is entitled to. Phillips v Liverpool John Lennon Airport, 2009 quotes contract of services as those which are based on employee/ employer or master/ servant relationship2. The employer has control over the employee how the work is to be performed. Under this law, employers are responsible for anything the employee does while working. This is the case whether what they do causes civil wrong, or tort to another person that is employer is vicariously liable. On the other side, Abbie might be enshrined by contract for service. Furmston and Smith (2012, p. 45) quotes contract for service as employment relationship where there lacks a principal relationship of management. In this case, there is usually an agreement between the employer and the employee on specific task for a specific sum of money. In this case, the person providing the service is not an employee but rather than independent contractor. The employee does not control the way in which the contractor does the work. Given the nature of the case, Abbie is enshrined on contract for service meaning that she entitled to agree to the employer’s terms of contract (De Souza v Vinci Construction UK, 2014). However, in appropriate legal proceedings, the court will be required to distinguish employees from independent contractors by applying the multi-factor, or total relationship, test. In this case, Abbie will be required to produce a written agreement, specifying who chooses working hours, who supplies tools and equipment, can the worker choose his or her replacement, does the worker work for others and finally does the worker operate under the business name (Jones et al., 2013). Additionally, Abbie is required to provide proof whether her acts can be considered negligent. In testing the eligibility of the law, contract of service has with it mutuality of obligations (Scully and Meyerson, 1993, p. 277). An employer is obliged to offer work to an employee and an employee is obliged to carry out that work. As well, Abbie is bended by the law given that contract of service mandates an employer to control an employee. According to the law, an employer is able not only to specify what work is carried out, but also to exact in which way it will be carried out. A self-employed person will be contracted to perform specific tasks but will use professional skills and expertise to determine exactly work need to be carried out. In relation to the provision of equipment, the law is states that an employee will normally expect his employer to supply the essential equipment to perform the task. Largely, the question whether Abbie has the right to use the new equipment depends on the nature of contract she is entitled to. For that reason, Abbie3 will be required to review the contract before presenting a justification before the tribunal similar to (Makuchova v Guoman Hotel Management, 2014), where according to claimant it was important to present disability factor, why he or she cannot handle such a job. In this case, the law specifies that the rights conferred on parties under the employment contract will be decided and applied by reference to the proper or applicable law of the contract. As well, the right to bring an action before a specific court depends on whether the court has a valid jurisdiction over the issue. Abbie should therefore understand that the law of contract and the jurisdiction are two separate concepts. For that reason, the court’s Abbie might either win or lose depending on whether she had a contract in place (Hameed v Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 2010) 4. However, under section 2245 of Employment Law, the parties to a contract may choose which law will determine their respective rights and obligations under the contract. However, even if the parties agree that the law of a country outside the UK is to govern the contract, a UK employee cannot be deprived of applicable UK statutory employment rights. For that reason, Abbie can choose any law, which in this case will be. Abbie can choose the law of the jurisdiction in which she habitually carries out his work under the contract even if she is supplied with another time of material. As well, it is not possible to ascertain where he habitually carries out his work, the law of the jurisdiction in which the place of business through which he was engaged or situated Knight v Fairway & Kenwood Car Service 5. Likewise, it will be advisable to examine the state of how she habitually carries out her work. In this case, where the established effective equipment is, where the fact performs the essential part of her duties. As well, under 2257 Abbie can present her argument based on the length of time she has worked in the company (Wells, 2003, p. 253). Roz vs. Dennis Given sincere motives on the same, other employees should not impose against Roz. The law protects Roz in this case and she can take an action against Dennis. Empowered by the Employee Rights Act (1996) Roz can sue Dennis over harassment. Convincingly, employee decision-making process needs to ask them a number of important questions such as, should be confined to operational processes or extended to include strategic issues (Community Dental Centres Ltd v Sultan-Darmon, 2009) 6. As well, Roz should present a list of topics and issues that should be subject or shared decision-making. Likewise, Roz should determine what part of the union representations takes care of her arrangement and more so her powers (Hepple, 2014). Equally, Roz should determine what part of statutory obligations should be dealt with, that is disclosure on redundancies communication on safety matters. As well, there is need to investigate the extent of managerial power. The question is whether Dennis who acts on her employer behalf could have acted appropriately. It is relatively easy to think of examples where an intimidation might engage convention right issues (Kidner, 2014, p. 33). Concerning whether the intimidation is for fair reason, Roz should understand that convention rights argument are obviously relevant to the employee-side duties than the employer obligations to act fairly as the employer is not generally in a subordinate position requiring protection of its fundamental rights (Brown, 1992 and Singh, 2011) In the UK, the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) provides that a tribunal must determine whether a dismissal is unfair by considering whether the reason which might justify dismissal. As well, the tribunal is mandated by the law to enable the employee provide evidence on his or her account, (Prime Health Care vs. Brown, 2015)7. In this case, substantial reasons include those that relate to the capability or conduct of the employee or redundancy. The tribunal must as well determine whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the employee for a particular reason considering that equity and substantial merits of the case (Oni v Unison, 2014) 8. However, Roz will be required to establish the appropriate the common law that affirms managerial power. In the case of common law, Roz will be notified that test limits of the tribunals’ intervention to extreme cases of abuse of managerial power might result in dismissal of being harsh for a particular employee but not unfair based on current business practices of employers. In defending Roz managerial rights, it can become impossible given her employment status. According to Holland and Burnett (2002, p. 34), unfair dismissal rights are significantly qualified in different scenarios by the exclusion of particular classes of employees. Under the ERA, an employee in the UK must have completed one year of service with the employer in order to qualify for the period before accessing unfair dismissal rights. For that reason, Roz can bring an unfair dismissal to be heard before the tribunal as it subject to appeals on point of law to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) and then the court of Appeal and the House of Lords. According to, the EAT is best house to deal with. At common law, Dennis could have provided a straightforward requisite notice to notify on his power. However, ignorance of Roz managerial power attracts questions. Roz needs to be assured that Employment Rights Act UK is a statutory, meaning that the courts are able to use section 3 of the HRA and exercise their interpretive functions to produce indirect horizontal effects which have already been done in different cases (Hockman and Miliband, 2015). As well, Brodie (2010, p. 43) believes that it is common law duty of trust and confidence that is implied into all employment contracts given that the interaction of duties and conventional rights are yet to be explored. Convincingly, Roz should understand that private employment law is primarily contained in legislation, and these basic statutory provisions are continually interpreted (Carey, 2009, p. 49, and Cabrelli, 2014). The legislation is subject to the interpretative obligation under section 3 of the HRA to ensure its compatibility with convention rights. Moreover, Roz should be assured that employment contracts are governed by some key common law principles that are susceptible to the arguments that the courts should give effects to the convention right when applying them. References Cabrelli. D Employment Law in Context Texts and Materials 2014 OUP Chesterton Global Ltd & Anor v Nurmohamed [2015] 14 /DM 0335 (DM) Community Dental Centres Ltd v Sultan-Darmon [2009] UKEAT, 053209, DA D. Brodie, Enterprise liability and the common law. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010) D. Brown, & A. Mccolgan, UK Employment Law and the International Labor Organization; The Spirit of Cooperation? Industrial Law Journal, [1992] p. 265-279. De Souza v Vinci Construction UK [2014] 0328 UKEAT 32 (DXA) Employee Rights Act 1996 s 15(1) (b) Hameed v Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2010] EWHC Hepple,B (2014). Equality, The Legal Framework. 2nd Edition Hart Publishing J. Holland., & S Burnett/ Employment law. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). 33 Johnson v Manpower Direct Ltd [2014] 0351 UKEAT 44 (DXA) Jones, L Introduction to Business Law 2nd Edition OUP 2013 K. Schmidt, Labor and employment law and economics. (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. 2009) K. Wells. The Impact of the Framework Employment Directive on UK Disability Discrimination Law. Industrial Law Journal, [2003]. Kidner, Blackstones Employment Law Statutes 2013 2014 OUP (or regular and keen use of Westlaw). Knight v Fairway & Kenwood Car Service [2012] Ltd UKEAT/0075/12/LA Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust [2009] UKEAT 025409 (CEA) M. Furmston, & V Smith, Powell-Smith & Furmstons building contract casebook (5th ed.). West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), p. 454 M. Scully, & D, Meyerson, The separation of law and justice: Managing impressions of corporate ethics programs. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, [1993] 277-289. Makuchova v Guoman Hotel Management [2014] 14 UKEAT 0279 (DA) Oni v Unison [2014] 14 UKEAT 0370 (LA) P. Carey, Data protection: A practical guide to UK and EU law (3.rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). Phillips v Liverpool John Lennon Airport [2009] EWCA Civ 1437 Premier Model Management Ltd v Bruce & Ors [2012] EWHC 3509 QB Prime Health Care vs. Brown UKEAT [2015] 1 UKEAT 0230 (DM) R. Singh, European Community employment law: Key recent cases and their implications for the UK. Industrial Relations Journal, [2011]. 3 373. S. Hockman, & E. Miliband, Law Reform 2015. (London: Profile Books.) p. 15 Smith, I & Baker, A (2013) Employment Law, 11th ed. OUP Read More