Module Employment Law of Human Resource Management in UK - Essay Example

 Employment Law Executive Summary The main issue in this case study is the dismissal of Maggie which resulted from a number of incidents that occurred in Megaframes UK, the company she was employed. But there are other issues involved with regard to Maggie, such as her claim for holiday leave, discrimination as a female employee, health and safety in the premises, and union agreement imposed to non-members such as her. Determination of the legal rights to support her claim is made through the use of applicable laws. For instance, although she was dismissed, what kind of claim can she file when the one-year continuity of service does not apply to her. Or can she avail of a claim for direct discrimination or indirect discrimination. In the process of determining the rights of Maggie, provisions all laws are cited to clarify points and support her stand. After an in-depth analysis of the case study and the pertinent laws, it has been found out that Maggie has causes of action for dismissal, discrimination, victimisation and bullying. She cannot claim for a five-week holiday leave because the four-week given to her by the company is sufficient compliance with the law. She is justified in refusing to load materials unto the vehicle because she is a clerk, it is discriminatory and the loading area is dangerous without sufficient health and safety equipment installed. The course of action that Maggie should undertake are also laid out, including the persons or concerned agencies she can go for assistance and advice with regard to her claims and causes of action (like bullying). The company’s liability and deficiency are also discussed with focus on the health and safety requirement and safety machinery in the loading area. Recommendations are also given on what the company should do with regard to the bullying supervisor and providing health personnel (e.g. first-aider, nurse or doctor) in the workplace. Main Body There are several issues involved in the case of Maggie. The first issue that should be determined is the status of Maggie with respect to the company Megaframes UK. The facts of the case show that there is a contract of employment between Maggie and the company. And based on that contract, she started working as a clerk on January 2006. Both an “employee” and a “worker” render service under a contract of employment but their rights under the statute or common law differ. According Section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, an employee is an “individual who has entered into or works under (or, where employment has ceased, worked under) a contract of employment” (http://www.cipd.co.uk/EmploymentLaw/FAQ/_EmpStatus/_FAQ/QA_11.htm, 2006). Under Section 230 of the same law, a worker is an individual who “entered into, work, or worked under: a contract of employment, or any other contract, whether express or implied and (if it is express) whether oral or in writing, whereby the individual undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services for another party to the contract but whose status is not by virtue of the contract that of a client or customer of any profession or business undertaking carried on by the individual” (http://www.cipd.co.uk/Employment Law/FAQ/_EmpStatus/_FAQ/QA_6.htm, 2006). Her rights will depend on her status as a worker or an employee. A contract of employment is an agreement between an employer and an employee (http://www.direct.gov.uk/Employment/Employees/EmploymentContractsAndConditions/ContractsAndConditionsArticles/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=10027905&chk=n/wav9, 2005). The terms (which are legally binding) of the contract refer to the rights and duties of both employer and employee (http://www.direct.gov.uk/Employment/Employees/Employment ContractsAndConditions/ContractsAndConditionsArticles/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=10027905&chk=n/wav9, 2005) and each can sue the other for any breach (http:// www.direct.gov.uk/Employment/Employees/EmploymentContractsAndConditions/Contracts AndConditionsArticles/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=10037109&chk=I2UN1v, 2005). The case law itself has not provided a clear-cut example of who should be considered as workers and its determination depend on the law applied. Self-employed individuals are not workers under the Working Time Regulations due to the absence of ‘mutuality of obligation’ (AD Bly Construction Limited v Cochrane (unreported, EAT 0243/05, 2005)), (Bacica v Muir [2006] IRLR 35, EAT) (http://www.cipd.co.uk/EmploymentLaw/FAQ/_Emp Status/_FAQ/QA_6.htm, 2006). However, a self-employed commission agent, although not an employee, is a worker under the Working Time Regulations and entitled to holiday pay (Canada Life Ltd v Gray and Farrar, EAT 13 January 2004) (http://www.cipd.co.uk/ EmploymentLaw/FAQ/_EmpStatus/_FAQ/QA_6.htm, 2006). Since Maggie is not working in the category of a self-employed agent, etc., then Maggie is an employee of Megaframes UK. The criteria of control and mutuality of obligation (employer’s obligation to provide work and worker to do it) exist in the case of Maggie (http://www.cipd.co.uk/ EmploymentLaw/FAQ/_EmpStatus/_FAQ/QA_7.htm). Her first refusal to load lighter materials unto a vehicle occurred when she just started working while the second incident occurred just a “couple of days” thereafter, but dismissed her from work in December 2006, several days before reaching one year in service. All the elements to claim for unfair dismissal are present except the one-year continuity in service (the three months filing from dismissal is also available to her until March 2007) (http://www.cipd.co.uk/EmploymentLaw/FAQ/_Unfair_dismissal/_FAQ/QA_22.htm, 2006). She is exempt from the one-year continuity requirement if her dismissal falls under the automatically unfair reason, such as paternity or maternity related events, family emergencies, doing health or safety activities, etc. (http://www.cipd.co.uk/Employment Law/FAQ/_Unfair_dismissal/_FAQ/QA_20.htm, 2006). The statutory dismissal procedure is imperative regardless of the length of service of an employee. An employee is entitled to notice, which should be incorporated in the contract, in any disciplinary sanction in accordance with the statutory minimum dismissal and disciplinary procedures. The notice should be one week for continuous employment of one month to two years, and one week for each complete year (up to a maximum of 12) for continuous service of two years (http://www.direct.gov.uk/Employment/Employees/ RedundancyAndLeavingYourJob/RedundancyAndLeavingYourJobArticles/fs/en?CONTEN T_ID=10026689&chk=ErZX00, 2005). However, the employer might prefer to pay Maggie in lieu on notice, called ‘payment in lieu of notice’ (PILON). The amount can be laid out in the contract earlier or agreed upon later (http://www.direct.gov.uk/Employment /Employees/RedundancyAndLeavingYourJob/RedundancyAndLeavingYourJobArticles/fs/ en?CONTENT_ID=10026689&chk=ErZX00, 2005). Non-compliance with the statutory procedure will give an employee the right unfair dismissal (http://www .cipd.co.uk/EmploymentLaw/FAQ/_SexDisc/_FAQ/A_10.htm, 2006). Although Maggie does not have the one-year service requirement, or the automatically unfair reason, she is entitled under the law to file a claim for unfair dismissal due to failure of the management to give her the mandated statutory requirement of one-week notice. She may also opt to file a claim for wrongful dismissal and may recover legal costs in the normal civil courts (http://www.cipd.co.uk/EmploymentLaw/FAQ/_WrongfulDismis sal/_FAQ/QA_4. htm, 2006) (to be filed within six years from dismissal) or employment tribunal if the award does not exceed £25,000 or filed within three months from dismissal (http://www.cipd.co.uk/EmploymentLaw/FAQ/_WrongfulDismissal/_FAQ/QA_8.htm, 2006). Wrongful dismissal refers to the contractual claim by an employee where an employer breached the oral or written terms of a contract that led to the actual or constructive dismissal (http://www.cipd.co.uk/EmploymentLaw/FAQ/_WrongfulDismissal/_FAQ/QA_2.htm, 20 06). Not giving the proper contractual or statutory notice and dismissal without correct compensation in lieu of notice are examples of wrongful dismissal (http://www.cipd.co.uk/EmploymentLaw/FAQ/_WrongfulDismissal/_FAQ/QA_2.htm, 2006). A trade union represents the interest of employees and negotiate better terms and conditions for them through collective bargaining. A union can also negotiate for non-union employees. The negotiated terms and conditions are termed ‘collective agreements’. Any collective agreement applicable to Maggie should be set out in her employment contract. Since Maggie is unaware of this agreement until she was summoned by Tony, the company was amiss (http://www.direct.gov.uk/Employment/Employees/TradeUnions/TradeUnions Articles /fs/en? CONTENT_ID=10027544&chk=yVA5bo, 2005). Making Maggie to load light materials unto vehicles is a detriment which is tantamount to sexual discrimination. As a female, she should not be loading materials together with the male employees. Moreover, her position in the contract as clerk specifically defines her functions. The intimidation and threat by her supervisor Tony to be subjected to disciplinary action if she persists in being “obstructive” are likewise detrimental to her. Where a detriment caused to a female employee “arises out of and is closely connected with employment relationship,” it is discrimination (http://www.cipd.co.uk/Employment Law/FAQ/_SexDisc/_FAQ/QA_3.htm, 2006). The four forms of discrimination are as follows: direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, victimisation and harassment (http://www.cipd.co.uk/EmploymentLaw/ FAQ/_Discrimination/_FAQ/QA_7.htm, 2006). Discrimination refers to a less favourable treatment of an employee than others (http://www.direct.gov.uk/Employment/Emplo yees/DiscriminationAtWork/DiscriminationAtWorkArticles/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=10026557&chk=qbF7cT, 2005). There is direct discrimination if the less favourable treatment is on account of the employee’s age, race, sex, disability, religion or sexual orientation (http://www.cipd.co.uk/EmploymentLaw/FAQ/_Discrimination/_FAQ/QA_7.htm, 2006). The present discrimination and unfair treatment is connected with the gender of the employee. Causing Maggie to load materials even if light is discrimination. Maggie can claim for direct discrimination due to less favourable treatment on account of her sex. An employer will be liable for direct discrimination on gender grounds under Section 6 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA) for treating a female unfavourably than if it would be a male on matters of recruitment, during employment or by dismissal on account of her sex (http://www.cipd.co.uk/EmploymentLaw/FAQ/_ SexDisc/_FAQ/QA_4.htm, 2006). For a claim to direct discrimination to prosper, Maggie has to present a comparator to demonstrate the less favourable treatment accorded to her (http://www.cipd.co.uk/EmploymentLaw /FAQ/_Discrimination/_FAQ/QA_7.htm). What the employer should do in cases where there are voluminous deliveries is to hire temporary workers to meet the demands of the business. Forcing females to load materials in the pretext of complying with a union agreement is discriminatory. She can also claim for indirect discrimination due to the application of a provision, criterion or practice to both sexes but places a female at a disadvantage and which the employer cannot justify (http://www.cipd.co.uk/EmploymentLaw/FAQ/_SexDisc/_FAQ/ QA_4.htm, 2006). The union agreement in this instance is a provision, criterion or practice that places Maggie in a disadvantageous position. The agreement also impinges on the security of tenure of employees. The agreement provides job assurance if all employees will undertake any work regardless of sex is discriminatory. However, if the agreement is not tainted with discrimination, Maggie’s position that she can refuse to comply with the agreement being a non-member of the union cannot prosper. Moreover, a union can only negotiate for terms and conditions such as pay, hours of work, holiday entitlement, notice periods, etc. (http://www.direct.gov.uk/Employment/Employees/EmploymentContractsAnd Conditions/Co ntractsAndConditionsArticles/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=10027905&chk=n/wav9, 2005). Indirect discrimination allows the employer to set up a defence or justification of the condition (http://www.direct.gov.uk/Employment/Employees/DiscriminationAtWork/Discri minationAt WorkArtic les/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=10026557&chk=qbF7cT, 2005). Maggie can also file a complaint for victimisation. The second time Maggie was summoned by Tony, she brought out the several issues (dangerous situation, health and safety, holiday leave and her position as clerk), that resulted to her summary dismissal. Tony dismissed her due to a perceived threat of bringing a discrimination claim with regard to loading materials. Sex discrimination is not the issue in victimisation but the treatment of the employer as a result of bringing a claim by an employee or assisting another to bring a claim (http://www.cipd.co.uk/EmploymentLaw/FAQ/_SexDisc/_FAQ/QA_4.htm, 2006). Victimisation involves less favourable treatment of an employee, due to, among others, the belief of management that the victim has brought any proceeding or intends to bring a proceeding related to discrimination (http://www.cipd.co.uk/EmploymentLaw/FAQ /_Discrimination/_FAQ/QA_7.htm, 2006). Bullying, which is similar to harassment, is intimidation by one against another and can be filed under the laws of discrimination and harassment (http://www. direct.gov.uk/Employment/Employees/DiscriminationAtWork/DiscriminationAtWorkArti cles/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=10026670&chk=/iw29T, 2005). It is an unfair treatment and unacceptable in the workplace (http://www.direct.gov.uk/EmploymentEmployees/ DiscriminationAtWork/DiscriminationAtWorkArticles/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=10026557&ch k=qbF7cT, 2005). The Equal Opportunities Commission define workplace bullying and harassment as “persistent unacceptable offensive, intimidating, malicious, insulting or humiliating behaviour, abuse of power or authority which attempts to undermine an individual or group of employees and which may cause them to suffer stress” (http://www.eoc.org.uk/Default.aspx?page=17535). There is physical or verbal abuse, regular unfair treatment, threat to be sacked, humiliation, etc. in bullying (http://www.direct.gov.uk/Employment/Employees/DiscriminationAtWork/DiscriminationAt WorkArticles/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=10 026670&chk=/iw29T, 2005). It is included in the employer’s duty of care to its employees to deal with bullying at work (http://www. direct.gov.uk/Employment/Employees/DiscriminationAtWork/DiscriminationAtWorkArti cles/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=10026670&chk=/iw29T, 2005). Maggie was subjected to bullying when Tony threatened to sack her for being “obstructive” in the workplace. The stress to her would be greater since the bully is not an ordinary worker but her supervisor. As a remedial measure Maggie can do, since she was bullied by her supervisor, she can complain with someone higher in the hierarchy, like the line manager, or even the human resource department (http://www.direct.gov.uk/Employment/Employees/DiscriminationAtWork/Dis criminationAt WorkArticles/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=10026670&chk=/iw29T, 2005). Health and safety issues are governed by legislation (the primary law is the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, backed by codes and regulations). The employer’s duty to care with regard to health and safety at the workplace arise from the principles of negligence, contract, and numerous statutes, as well as the common law (http://www.cipd.co.uk/ subjects/health/general/healthsafetywork.htm, 2006). There is also a term implied into all employment contracts requiring employers to take care of their employees’ health and safety by providing a safe workplace, safe system, facilities, and hire skilled safety staff (http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/health/general/healthsafetywork.htm, 2006). Failure of the employer on this matter would entitle an employee to claims, which include resignation and claim constructive unfair dismissal (http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/health/general/health safetywork.htm, 2006). The company violated the health and safety laws for not having lifting machinery, health and safety policy statement (require for a company with five employees), safety representatives, first-aider, and a company nurse or doctor (http://www.direct.gov.uk/ Employment/Employees/HealthAndSafetyAtWork/HealthAndSafetyAtWorkArticles/fs/en? CONTENT_ID=10026579&chk=TIsclN, 2005). The written policy statement, to be regularly monitored, must include the procedure, risk involved, individuals concerned, stress policy, training, etc. to be made after consultation with employees and conducting staff surveys on health and safety attitude (http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/health/general/healthsafetywork. htm, 2006). Consultation on health and safety issues should be made with the employees as mandated by law to maintain a safe and healthy environment (http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg232.pdf, 1996). The employer should encourage and motivate employees to join such consultation and give them or their representatives time off (http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg232.pdf, 1996). The employer is duty bound and responsible for the health and safety of employees and intitiate risk assessment of the premises (http://www.direct.gov.uk/Employment/ Employees/HealthAndSafetyAtWork/HealthAndSafetyAtWorkArticles/fs/en?CONTENT_I D=4016686&chk=HW FvSL, 2005). The local Environmental Health Department (EHD) should also inspect the loading area of Megaframes UK for risk assessment (http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/health/general/healthsafetywork.htm, 2006). Maggie’s refusal to load materials is justifiable since the area is not safe and should not have been threatened with disciplinary action. She even followed the procedure by raising the issue with the supervisor. Although the cause of the dismissal was not mentioned, she was dismissed when she raised health and safety concerns. According to Directgov (2005), dismissal for “refusing to undertake an unsafe working practice” gives the employee the right to claim unfair dismissal at an Employment Tribunal” (http://www.direct.gov.uk/Employment/Employees/HealthAndSafetyAtWork/ HealthAndSafetyAtWorkArticles/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4016686&chk=HWFvSL, 2005). Since a company is legally bound to consult safety representatives, it would be committing an offence for not doing so (http://www.direct.gov.uk/Employment/Employees/HealthAnd SafetyAtWork/HealthAndSafetyAtWorkArticles/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=10026585&chk=ime QsO, 2005). Maggie can also be protected by the Public Concern at Work as a “whistleblower” if it ever happened that she reported to safety representatives the dangerous condition of the loading area (http://www.direct.gov.uk/Employment/Emplo yees/HealthAndSafetyAtWork/HealthAndSafetyAtWorkArticles/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=100 26585&chk=imeQsO, 2005). Constant heavy lifting without lifting equipment makes the employees susceptible to Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSDs) (http://www.Direct.gov. uk/Employment/Employees/HealthAndSafetyAtWork/HealthAndSafetyAtWorkArticles/fs/en? CONTENT_ID=10026677&chk=TZVEKa, 2005). The law allows employers to give different terms and benefits to employees according to the length of service. The statutory right of an employee to annual paid leave is at least four weeks or twenty days for a five-day work a week (http://www.direct.gov. uk/Employment/Employees/WorkingHoursAndTimeOff/WorkingHoursAndTimeOffArti cles/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=10029788&chk=iZegjW, 2005) under the Working Time Regulations 1998, including the bank holidays (http://www.cipd.co.uk/ EmploymentLaw/FAQ/_BankHolidays/_FAQ/QA-3.htm, 2006). The law grants a minimum twenty-day leave or four weeks with no paid bank and public holidays leave. Thus, payment of a bank or public holiday can be counted with the four-week entitlement (http://www.direct.gov.uk/Employment/Employees/WorkingHoursAndTimeOff/WorkingHo ursAndTimeOffArticles/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=10029788&chk=iZegjW, 2005). Customarily, the bank and public holidays are included in the twenty-day working time entitlement but in practice, employers grant these holidays in addition to the said twenty-day paid leave (http://www.cipd.co.uk/EmploymentLaw/FAQ/_BankHolidays/ _FAQ/QA-3.htm, 2006). The present move is to include the eight permanent bank and public holidays to the paid holiday increasing them to 5.6 weeks or twenty eight days (http://www.direct.gov.uk/Employment/Employees/WorkingHoursAndTimeOff/Working HoursAndTimeOffArticles/fs/en?CO NTENT_ID=10029788&chk=iZegjW, 2005) and will be formalised in the Work and Families Bill (http://www.cipd.co.uk/Employment Law/FAQ/_BankHolidays/_FAQ/QA-3.htm, 2006). The employer may give more than the minimum four weeks leave as part of the terms of employment (http://www.direct.gov.uk/Employment/Employees/WorkingHoursAnd TimeOff/WorkingHoursAndTimeOffArticles/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=10034642&chk=pTah2 D, 2005). But such extra benefit (e.g. additional holiday) must be justified to be desirable to motivate the employees, reward loyalty and recognise experience (http://www.cipd. co.uk/EmploymentLaw/FAQ/_Terms/_FAQ/QA_20.htm, 2006). Different terms and conditions in contracts are allowed if based on length of service provided the period does not exceed five years, otherwise, the employer must justify the different terms (http://www.cipd.co.uk/EmploymentLaw/FAQ/_Terms/_FAQ/ QA_20.htm, 2006). The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 (effective 1 October 2006) allow different terms and conditions provided the less favourable treatment is not based on age (which is discriminatory) but on length of service (http://www.cipd.co.uk/EmploymentLaw/ FAQ/_Terms/_FAQ/QA_20.htm, 2006). An employee has no right to an additional holiday even if unpaid (http://www.direct.gov.uk/Employment/Employees/WorkingHoursAnd TimeOff/WorkingHoursAndTimeOffArticles/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=10034642&chk=pTAh2 D, 2005). Since the contract of Maggie gives her a four-week holiday leave, she cannot complain of a less favourable treatment when other employees are given five weeks of holiday leave. The five-week holiday granted to other employees is an act of generosity on the part of the employer or due to longer service to the company. Top of Form Recommendations It is clear from the discussion on the law that Maggie has a strong case for dismissal, unfair or wrongful. Since notice before dismissal is an integral part of a contract, her dismissal without notice is a violation of contractual terms. She can file a claim for breach of contract with the Employment Tribunal (http://www.direct.gov.uk/Employment/ Employees/RedundancyAndLeavingYourJob/RedundancyAndLeavingYourJobArticles/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=10026689&chk=ErZX00, 2005). She can likewise claim for indirect discrimination and victimisation. Her claim for health and safety violations likewise stand on a solid ground and supported by the statute law. Maggie’s assumption that she cannot be made to comply with the agreement between the management and the union is generally wrong. The union, as the legitimate representative of employees and workers, negotiates for their interests and welfare, both union and non-union members alike. The union can represent even non-union members and can recommend health and safety provisions for the company. But with respect to this particular instance, the union agreement with the management is discriminatory to females, specifically Maggie and Tricia. The agreement also seems illegal since the security to tenure of employees hinges on the condition that all employees, regardless to sex, should load materials. And non-compliance with this agreement would mean termination from work. Maggie was also not notified of this agreement which should have been incorporated in the contract. It was only Tony who informed her of such an agreement accompanied by a threat of disciplinary action. If the agreement is justifiable and for the good of everyone, Maggie should follow it even though she is not a union member. Thus, Maggie’s refusal to comply is justifiable for being discriminatory. According to Directgov (2005), she is also allowed to raise the issue of discrimination with the management using the modified grievance procedure since her employment has already been terminated (http://www.direct.gov.uk/Employment/Employees/Resolving WorkplaceDisputes/ResolvingWorkplaceDisputesArticles/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=10027992&chk= KB46Hf, 2005). Directgov (2005) further suggested that she comply with the statutory minimum grievance procedure before she can file a claim with the Employment Tribunal. Being dismissed without given any reason, Maggie can also request the supervisor to provide her a written statement on the reason of her dismissal. Summary dismissal without any reason is obviously unreasonable and violative of her rights. Since the cause of the bullying is the supervisor, Maggie can report the incident to the manager or the human resource department or approach Andrea Adams Trust (a charity working against bullying in the workplace), the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) and the local Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) (http://www.direct.gov.uk/Employment/Employees /DiscriminationAtWork/DiscriminationAtWorkArticles/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=10026670 & chk=/iw29T, 2005). Maggie can also report the breach she observed in the company to EHD or HSE. The employees are also under pressure to load materials which can cause stress, if excessive and regular (http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/health/stress/stress.htm, 2006). The company did not release all health and safety information to employees (http://www.hse.gov.uk/workers/ safetyreps/releasing.htm, 2006) and inform them of all the risk to their health (http://www.hse.gov.uk/workers/index.htm, 2006). In fact, Maggie got to know about the accidents only from other employees. The company has to make changes in its setup and personnel such as: compliance with the grievance and disciplinary procedure; training of supervisor on employee management (his resort to bullying and intimidation himself); installation of lifting and loading facilities for loading heavy materials unto vehicles; not subjecting employees to pressure which is a cause of work related stress; having in-house first-aider, company nurse or doctor; and consultation with union representatives or local authorities on health and safety issues. Conclusion In conclusion, Maggie has a cause against Megaframes UK for her dismissal which did not comply with the statutory notice and requirement. There were only two verbal “warnings” and after the second, she was summarily dismissed. The act is a flagrant violation of the statutory notice. Being an employee of the company for less than one year, she is entitled to a one-week notice before her dismissal. Although there are weaknesses in some of her claims, there are also strong causes of action. Furthermore, there are several agencies, like the ACAS, the local CAB, a Solicitor, or the recognised union, to give her assistance or advice on her claims on procedural requirements before she can file a claim with the tribunal (http://www.direct.gov.uk/Employment/Employees/RedundancyAndLeavingYourJob/Redun dancyAndLeavingYourJobArticles/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=10026689&chk=ErZX00, 2005). References Equal Opportunities Commission. [Homepage of the Equal Opportunities Commission] [Online] (2005) Available from: http://www.eoc.org.uk/Default.aspx?page=17535. [Accessed 25 December 2006]. Health and Safety Commission. (1996) Consulting employees on health and safety: a guide to the law. [Online]. Sudbury, Suffolk; Stationary Office. Available from: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg232.pdf. [Accessed 17 December 2006]. Health and Safety Executive. [Homepage of the Health and Safety Executive] [Online] (2006) Available from: http://www.hse.gov.uk/. [Accessed 17 December 2006]. Public services all in one place. [Homepage of the Directgov] [Online] (2005) Available from: http://www.direct.gov.uk. [Accessed 16 December 2006]. The HR and development website. [Homepage of the cipd] [Online] (2006) Available from: http://www.cipd.co.uk. [Accessed 7 December 2006]. Bibliography Action to Tackle Bullying at Work. [Homepage of the UK National Workplace Bullying Advice Line] [Online] (n.d.) Available from: http://www.bullyonline.org/action/caselaw.htm. [Accessed 24 December 2006]. British and Irish Legal Information Institute. [Homepage of the BAILII] [Online] (n.d.) Available from: http://www.bailii.org/. [Accessed 25 December 2006]. Sex Discrimination Act 1975. [Homepage of the Equal Opportunities Commission] [Online] (2006) Available from: http://www.eoc.org.uk/PDF/sda/pdf. [Accessed 25 December 2006]. Tribunals Service Employment Appeals. [Homepage of the Employment Appeal Tribunal] [Online] (2006) Available from: http://www.employmentappeals.gov.uk/. [Accessed 17 December 2006]. Welcome to the Department of Trade & Industry Website. [Homepage of the Department of Trade and Industry] [Online] (2006) Available from: http://www.dti.gov.uk/. [Accessed 15 December 2006]. Read More