The UK Employment Law on Unfair Dismissal - Case Study Example

2. Would or should UK employment law on unfair dismissal protect the following from dismissal: (a) Bill (b) The various nannies who work in the Mandox household Answer: When the lawmakers and law protectors are converted into the lawbreakers and offenders, discrimination in the society increases to its maximum. Discrimination of the capitalist and bureaucrat against the lower group of people who are either working in hazardous position or to the family of so called high society as the workers or servants, has gone beyond control. And if the persons in lawmaker of the country act in such way secretly, then who is going to make the law. If any how the law is made with the demands of the people, then who is going to act on them In the story "The Nights Mary Poppins Died", Muriel Mandox is herself Minister of Justice in the Cabinet, but she have done not only all the possible injustice in her private life, but also the maximum crime a person can do in life. The author has ironically pointed out unfair justice of Mandox towards the dismissal of all the servants in her Manson including Bill and the various nannies who work in the Mandox household. If UK employment law is going to take the initiative for making the law against the unfair dismissal, the possibility of coming into effect is amounting to zero up to the tenure of Muriel Mandox, who remains Minister of Justice but observing the pathetic situation of Bill and the various nannies in the Mandox household, the need for strong employment law is on high demand. When the reader come to know the attitude of Charles, "famous indifference towards strangers was born of class, nationality, wealth and temperament could not fail to be surprised.", then he/she can immediately understand the situation of the labour group working under his control. He is sure to use them at their need and when need is finished; they are thrown out from the job. The view of Muriel Mandox is much more dreaded, she says, 'Look abroad for labour. Look at it this way. They're cheaper. They work harder. You know where they are. They have no friends and, if not satisfied, you can throw them out of the country. What more do you want British jobs for British workers; don't make me laugh. The British worker is a lazy, useless joke.(7)' A Minister of Justice can use these types of words in the private life in the house only and she will defend 'injustice' in public and at the time of election she will hate such people who dare to use such words. A justice minister has no justice to the class of labour, no justice to humanity, no justice to emotion of a person, no justice to respect the dignity of her country, no justice to respect to the persons of her country, she only wants the cheap labour, she only wants harder labourers, marking the British worker as a joke. But in public she has ironically contrasting thought, "Her own first thought was to tell the overweening, exploitative capitalist bastard to go to hell (6)." In choosing the nannies for her children, she is much concern on the economy and faithfulness of them but she is not willing to pay any attention to them. They all were sacked when they have done unsatisfactory job without any consideration to their basic need of employment. If there could have been any protection law from the UK government then unfair dismissal become difficult for the people of downtrodden society or at least they can proceed to the court of law for the justice, though there are less chances of getting justice as the Minister of Justice is the owner of the household, Muriel Mandox. At first she had been reluctant to hire childcare, but of the household of Bleak Hall it rapidly became obvious that only Bill had either inclination or patience to mind babies. Muriel's first choice nanny was English, wellborn, though not bright, comparatively well paid (5.00 per hour), but unfortunately insistent on regularity of hours and boyfriends. She lasted three months. The second, also English, better paid (7.00 per hour), working class in stock, also suffered from the same terminal afflictions, an attraction to regular hours and irregular boy friends. This girl, aping Muriel's apparent politics, also had the cheek to suggest that there should be a trade union she could join (7). The need for such protective law becomes essential when the readers understand the situation of Gabrielle from Almaty Kazakhstan. Her suffering from discriminations at every point of her life makes her existence a measurable and she appeals to her families in home country for the release. When she writes, "Her employer was a bitch who ignored, insulted or humiliated her and who even slapped her own children when her patience gave way (which was often). Her employer's husband was an arrogant bastard who in the afternoons slept with his drunken, homosexual friend. The two older children were spoilt brats. She hated them, she hated herself (10)." the situation of the employer is absolutely comprehensible to all and sundry. And her brother, Karl Kasprov, comes only to found her murdered by Muriel. The each and every word of the letter not only pleads for the release from the bondage but also demands indirectly the enforcement of such laws that can protect the unfair justice to them. The misfortune murder of Gabrielle by Muriel Mandox by the toy gun and deliberate murder of Bill, are always demanding the UK employment authority to make such laws that can guard the rights of protection of employment. Even some more rights like right for leave and holiday, are to be provided for them. Gilbert advocates the need for law for holiday for working labourer in a case study. In Stringer v HMRC, former employees of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) have brought claims against the department after requests for holiday and holiday pay were rejected due to long-term sick leave. One employee had requested annual leave during a period of sickness absence, which HMRC refused. The others were dismissed following long-term sickness absence, and they claimed payment in lieu for outstanding holiday. David Royden - Employment Solicitor has find out; when is a Dismissal Fair or Unfair According to him "the law on unfair dismissal does no more than give employees a legal right to be treated in the way in which a fair and reasonable employer would treat them anyway. For an employer to dismiss an employee fairly, he or she must both: have a valid reason for dismissing the employee, and act reasonably in treating that reason as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee." He further adds that Legislation lists five specific types of reason which can justify dismissal which are Conduct, Capability, Redundancy, A Statutory Requirement, Some other Substantial Reason. A case study from Law Teacher, The Law Essay Professionals: INJUNCTIONS - INJUNCTIONS IN PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES - PROTECTION OF CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS - EXPRESS NEGATIVE COVENANTS - OTHER COVENANTS - COVENANT NOT TO PUBLISH - MATTER CONCERNING EXPERIENCES IN ROYAL HOUSEHOLD The first defendant was employed in the royal household between 1980 and 1983 on terms which included a contractual undertaking not to disclose, publish or reveal any incident, conversation or information concerning any member of the royal family or any visitor or guest which came to his knowledge during his employment or any information relating to his employment in the royal service unless duly authorised in writing to do so. The undertaking was perpetual and worldwide and the first defendant expressly acknowledged that it included an agreement on his part not to publish any such matter in any book. The second defendant, which was a Canadian company controlled by the first defendant, planned to publish in the United Kingdom a book written by the first defendant about his service in the royal household. The book was a flagrant breach of the first defendant's undertaking. The first defendant having refused to comply with the terms of his undertaking, the Attorney General issued a writ applying for worldwide injunction against the defendants restraining publication of the book. The Attorney General was granted injunctions against both defendants pending trial of the action, the injunction against the first defendant applying within and outside the United Kingdom while the injunction against the second defendant was limited to the United Kingdom. The first defendant appealed against the order in so far as it had extra-territorial effect and the Attorney General cross-appealed seeking an order having extra-territorial effect against the second defendant: Held the Attorney General's claim was not based on a breach of confidentiality but on a breach of contract, the consideration for the covenant by the first defendant not to publish matter concerning his experiences in the royal household being the agreement to take him on the staff of the royal household and to pay him wages or salary. Accordingly, the first defendant had for a consideration entered into a negative covenant which was limited neither territorially nor in time and such a covenant was enforceable provided it could not be attacked for obscurity, illegality or on public policy grounds such as being in restraint of trade. The covenant was not void on any ground of public policy or on the ground that it restricted the freedom of expression abroad contrary to art 10a of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and in the circumstances the balance of justice required that an interlocutory injunction having extra-territorial effect be granted against both defendants. The appeal would therefore be dismissed and the cross-appeal allowed. Footnotes: 1) Digits in ( ) indicate the page number of the story from where the quotation is taken 2) Sue Johnstone, editor of Equal Opportunities Review, provides a round-up of some ofthe remedies that employment tribunals have awarded in harassment cases. 3) Various Cases can be found out at : Case digest: Harassment, TOPICS: equal opportunitiesdisability race sex, tribunal procedures and penalties, health and safety workplace environment, AUTHOR:Sue Johnstone, from http://www.xperthr.co.uk/article/85424/case-digest--harassment.aspx#failure Bibliography: Royden, David - Employment Solicitor. Uk Employment Law. David Royden Is A Partner with Laytons Solicitors and Head of Employment Law, Manchester, UK. http://www.roydens.co.uk/content14.htm. 2005. 5th May 2009. Gilbert, Helen. "Employers are still unsure whether staff can accrue holiday pay while they are on sick leave." 1st May 2009. 5th May 2009. http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2009/05/01/50520/employers-still-in-doubt-over-sick-leave-holiday-pay.html Law Teacher, The Law Essay Professionals. A-G v Barker, [1990] 3 All ER 257 ,Court: CA Judgment Date: circa 1990. 5th May 2009. http://www.lawteacher.net/cases/emp8/file-44.php Read More