Essentials of Employment Law - Assignment Example

? Summative written assignment 14 March Summative written assignment Introduction Law is a laid down set of rules and regulations in a jurisdiction that governs the conduct of people. It outlines guidelines on which actions are defined as either legally right or wrong and provides for penalties for legal wrongs. Relationship between an employer and an employee is for instance governed by labour laws among other legislations that outline an employer’s responsibilities over an employee and consequences of breach of such responsibilities. This paper seeks to advise an employee who suffered from an accident while in the scope of his duties. The paper will explore the legal principles involved in the case with the aim of offering a legal advice to the employee. Facts of the case Mathew, an employee of pharmaceutical company, Medx ltd, was recently involved in an accident. He has worked as a warehouse operative for the pharmaceutical company for over 20 years. The company deals in and store heavy boxes containing its goods. Based on the scope of its operations, the company’s policy is that its employees are supposed to wear protective helmets while on duty. In December 2011, Mathew who was in good health and had never been involved in an accident leading to any injury was involved in an accident while on duty at the pharmaceutical company. A heavy box from an overhead wooden pallet rack fell and hit him to unconsciousness. He sustained several injuries including bruises on his face, a cut on his head, which left a permanent scar, dislocation of his right shoulder, and injuries to his leg. Mathew has been forced out of work for four months and medical report indicates that he may not be able to work for another six months. He also suffers continuous headache. He has a family with a running mortgage to finance. Legal issue Obligations under law of contract One of the essential legal elements in the case is the existence of a legal relationship between Mathew and MedX as defined by his employment contract. His relationship with MedX Ltd falls within the scope of an employment contract. Pozgar and Santucci defines an employment contract as an “agreement between an employee and an employer” in which special terms such as remuneration, the scope of work and working hours are defined (Pozgar and Santucci, 2009, p. 61). The agreement is therefore regulated by the law of contract under contract of service (Pozgar and Santucci, 2009, p. 61). A contract is an agreement, between parties, that legally enforces their rights and obligations. When parties enter into a contract, they expressly create conditions and warranties that regulate their relationship by laying down responsibilities and obligation of each party. Essential elements of a valid contract as defined through agreement, consideration, and intention to create legal obligations further binds parties to a contract to implied conditions in their trade. Contracts are therefore subject to legislations such as labour law statutes (Goldman and Sigismond, 2010, p. 123). Employee’s safety at workplace Implied conditions in contracts of service impose a responsibility on employers to ensure safety of their employees while at the work place. The occupational safety and health act is an example of such legislations that aims at ensuring welfare of employees. One of the provisions of the act is that an employer has the duty to minimize and possibly mitigate any health hazard within the work place. These threats can either be biological leading to illnesses or physical, leading to injuries. Failure to take necessary measures makes an employer liable to his or her employee for any injury or sickness suffered because of conditions at the work place. The act , with this respect, empowers government agencies to facilitate its implementation as was observed in the case of Donovan v Dewey, 452 U.S 594, 101 s. Cr 2534 (1981) (Ullmann, 2004, p. 339). Further, employers are charged with the responsibility of not only ensuring safety of their premises, but of ensuring safety of each of their individual employees. Liability is therefore instituted on an employer over loses or injuries suffered by an individual employee while within the working premises. This is particularly provided for by the “Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999” and was interpreted in the case of R v Gateway Foodmarkets Ltd (Lewis and Sargeant, 2004, p. 110). Employee’s right to compensation Based on the responsibility of employers to ensure that safety measure are put in place over the health and safety of employees, there are further legislations that grants employees rights to be compensated over injuries incurred within the employer’s defined workplace. Mead, Sagar and Bampton, explains that failure to ensure safety of employees constitutes both criminal and civil liability on the employer. An employee is therefore entitled to make civil claims over injuries suffered. First, an employee is entitled to wages over working days in which the employee is absent as a result of sickness or injury suffered from the workplace. Further, an employee who is a victim of breach of health and safety regulations is entitled to compensatory remedy on grounds of breach of duty by the employer. This is because it is the duty of the employer to ensure that working conditions are kept safe as was observed in the case of Bradford v Robinson Rentals Ltd (1967). The employer’s liability over employees is further extended to actions of other employees leading to injury of a colleague as was established in the case of Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Co Ltd (1957) (Mead, Sagar and Bampton, 2009, p. 123). Negligence Another legal principle in the case is the doctrine of negligence. Negligence is defined as a breach of a duty of care that is owed by one party to another. The duty of care must have been breached with the breach resulting in a legal damage on the plaintiff. For a claim of negligence to be approved, the plaintiff must be able to show that a duty of care existed and there was a breach to that duty of care. As a result, an injury was suffered. In the event of a successful suit for negligence, the plaintiff is entitled to remedies that are in most cases damages for compensation (Mead, Sagar and Bampton, 2009, p. 11). Vicarious liability While negligence is primarily instituted against an individual who owed and subsequently breached a duty of care, implied terms of trade as well as implication by status induces the concept of vicarious liability on employers. Under this doctrine, a party is held liable for the tort that is committed by another party. The doctrine is however applicable in special circumstances in which one party has control over the other. An example is in the employee employer relationship in which the employee is under full control of the employer. A tort committed by the employee while within the scope of duty can therefore be instituted against the employer who is then held liable for the necessary remedies (Goldman and Sigismond, 2010, p. 419). Contributory negligence The doctrine of contributory negligence is also applicable to the case. It is a defence that is applicable against the plaintiff in a bid to reduce the defendant’s extent of liability in a case. Contributory negligence refers to the actions of the plaintiff that played a role in the tort suffered or the extent of injury incurred based on the tort suffered. If the plaintiff contributed to the loss by failing in his own roles, then the defendant’s liability, to the extent of the plaintiff’s contribution, is reduced (Mead, Sagar and Bampton, 2009, p. 18). Remoteness The extent of liability of the defendant over legal claims by a plaintiff is also regulated by the principle of remoteness of the damage suffered with respect to the tort. The loss must be attributable to the tort as defined by the concept of immediate proximate cause. Failure to establish a relationship between the cause and the loss relieves the defendant of the liabilities due to the subject tort (Harpwood, , p. 162). Advice to Mathew The scope of the case, with respect to the relationship between Mathew and MedX limited, defines an employer employee relationship. As a result, a contract is deemed to have existed between Mathew and MedX with MedX as an employer. This induces implied duty on MedX to ensure health and safety of Mathew at the workplace and MedX is liable for any legal injury suffered by Mathew in the warehouse. A number of statutes such as Occupational Safety and Health laws, Health and Safety at Work laws and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations support this liability. Further, the doctrine of vicarious liability makes an employer liable for the acts of his employees. Mathew can therefore institute a claim against MedX on grounds of vicarious negligence on the tort committed by his fellow employee. This is because the employee was negligent in arranging the boxes that caused the injuries. Mathew has a high chance of winning claims for payment of wages for the sick days as well as for compensation due to negligently instituted injuries. The doctrine of remoteness of damage as well as negligence supports his case. The amount of remedies may however be reduced on the grounds of contributory negligence as Mathew was not wearing his helmet at the time of the incident. Reference list Goldman, A., and Sigismond, W. (2010). Business Law: Principles and Practices. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Print Harpwood, V. (2008). Modern Tort Law. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. Print Lewis, D., and Sargeant, M. (2004). Essentials of Employment Law. London, UK: CIPD Publishing. Print Mead, L., Sagar, D., and Bampton, K. (2009). CIMA Official Learning System Fundamentals of Ethics, Corporate Governance and Business Law. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Print Pozgar, G., and Santucci, N. (2009). Legal essentials of health care administration. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. Print Ullmann,V. (2004). Labor and employment law. New York, NY: Cengage Learning. Print Read More