The UK Laws of Employment: an Employment Tribunal on the Account of Unfair - Speech or Presentation Example

Court report on the proceedings of Employment Tribunal Mr R Rembiszewski v Atkins Ltd is a case that was presented before an employment tribunal on the account of unfair. The claimant, Mr R Rembiszewski presented the case before the tribunal, since he was unfairly dismissed from the company. According to his lawyer, his dismissal was unlawful, since it was against section 43B (1) (d) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Pitt, 2011 p17). Mr R Rembiszewski had observed that there were no clear guidelines that were followed during the promotion of employees. He therefore protested over the discrimination and was fired without further consultation or reasonable notice, as the UK laws of employment requires (Duggan, 2000 p34). The ground for his dismissal was not fair. Mr R Rembiszewski had been working for Atkins Ltd for a period of 16 years. He initially joined the company as a Railway architect, a position he held for four years, before he was promoted to the position of the deputy design officer. After working in this department for two years, his boss left, making this position vacant. After a thorough consideration by the Board of directors, he was found suitable to hold the position, and thus was promoted to become the design officer of the company. This was a clear indication that his hard work and efforts were recognized by the company. However, he was never promoted anymore during his tenure in the company, although many promotions had been made. His concern about this saw him protest against discrimination during promotions. This led to his dismissal without of reasonable notice (Painter & Holmes, 2011 p28). The Employment Tribunal had to consider these issues under a single case filed by Mr R Rembiszewski, and determine the case appropriately. Lawyers represented each party to the case, where they argued the case for their clients. The facts regarding this case were first presented by Mr Rembiszewski’s lawyer. According to him, there were a series of promotions that occurred in the company during the 16 years that he had worked with the company, yet he had only been promoted twice. According to Mr Rembiszewski, an employee was eligible for promotion if he/she had worked with the company for a minimum of five years, as provided for by company’s policies. This meant that he ought to have been promoted at least three times. The facts also stated that he protested this discrimination, since most of his colleagues, who had worked with the company for a similar duration, had obtained their fair share of promotions. After protesting, the management of the company failed to address his grievances. Instead, the company required that he should wait for the next duration when the company will be promoting its employees, for a possible consideration. Additionally, he was informed that it would be difficult for him to be moved from that position, since it was better held by an experienced design architect, yet the company did not have a prospective architect who would take up the position after he got promoted. Therefore, he was required to hold the position for some more years, to give the company time to hire design architect, who would be trained to take up the position, after he got promoted to a different position. Therefore, according to Mr Rembiszewski, the company had violated its policies, while also discriminating against him by denying him an opportunity for promotion. According to the policies of Atkins Ltd, an employee is eligible to be considered for any promotion after holding a certain company position for a minimum of five years. However, Mr Rembiszewski, the claimant in this case, was considered favorably for promotion before attaining the minimum working duration. Having displayed commitment and willingness to go an extra mile, just to achieve the company’s target, he was initially promoted after working for four years in the architect department. According to the company’s lawyer, the board and the management team of the company had promoted Rembiszewski as a show of good gesture and appreciation for his dedication and hard work. Additionally, he was later promoted after another two years. Therefore, the company considered that it had granted him subsequent promotions within a span of six years, which was a great favor for him. Although an employee qualified for a promotion after every five years, he had been granted promotion twice within a span of six years. Therefore, he had to wait for at least four more years before he could be considered for another promotion. During the span of four years, there arose many other higher positions which were taken up by his colleagues, since it was fair to let others get promotion. The failure to be considered for subsequent promotions during the working period aggrieved him, prompting him to protest for lack of consideration in promotions. This, according to the company lawyer was unnecessary, since he had already been considered twice with a span of less than ten years, which is the minimum duration for which an employee should be promoted twice. According to Mr Rembiszewski’s lawyer, the first instance of violating the legal requirements under the employment laws occurred when the company decided to keep Mr Rembiszewski stagnant in his position, since there was no other suitable replacement. According to the Equality Act 2010 section 1 (49), all employees should be treated equally, without any discrimination based on their gender, age, physical appearance or sexual orientation (Lewis & Sargeant, 2012 p44). Therefore, there is no individual or a group of people who should be treated less favourably (Incomes Data Services, 2011 p28). However, the company had discriminated against Mr Rembiszewski, by requiring him to hold the position for some more years, while he had qualified for different positions, simply because the position was suitable experienced architect designers (Taylor & Amir, 2010 p15). Mr Rembiszewski’s lawyer observed that it was within his right to be allowed to take up any other company position, irrespective of replacement considerations. Thus, the company had treated Rembiszewski unfavourably, by discriminating against him in promotions. The Equality Act 2010 section 6(18) (a) states clearly that an employee should not be treated unfairly compared to others, for any reason related to his/her job position (Thavalingam, 2008 p50). Therefore, the company ought to have planned for its human resource requirements, with a clear consideration that none of the employee should be subjected to unfair treatment for any reason whatsoever (Kidner, 2011 p72). Thus, this was a failure on the part of the company, which ought to have considered hiring a replacement earlier. The other violation of legal requirements concerning employment laws emanate from the fact that the company acted against the provision of its policies, which guide hiring and promotions. According to the Employment Rights Act 1996 of the United Kingdom, section 21B (3) (c) a company that acts in total disregard of the outlined employment policies and guidelines is liable for the emerging legal consequences (Painter & Holmes, 2011 p33). According to Mr Rembiszewski’s lawyer, the company did not follow the stipulated company employment policies when denying Rembiszewski an opportunity to be promoted. This is because; the policies of the company gave a right to any employee to be considered for promotion, on condition that he/she had held a company position for a minimum of five years. In this case of Rembiszewski had served the company for sixteen years, ten of which she served as a design architect officer. This guaranteed him right to consideration in subsequent company promotions. The employment act 2002 of the UK, section 1(5) (b), requires that an individual is granted a written letter of appointment, within a period of eight weeks after being hired by the company (Kidner, 2011 p61). Under this written contract, the terms and conditions of employment, as well as the policies of the company regarding employment should be outlined. This was the basis of Rembiszewski’s evidence in court, where her lawyer displayed the letter of appointment that outlined the promotion policies. Further, after Mr Rembiszewski protested the unfavourable treatment by the company, she was fired. This is yet another violation of the employment laws by the company, since the grounds for dismissing Mr Rembiszewski were unfair. The employment act of 2002 section 4 (a) (44) requires that no employee should be dismissed from his/her position in the company based on some unfair grounds (Moffatt, 2011 p54). Therefore, it was wrong for the company to dismiss Mr Rembiszewski, just because she protested over unfair treatment during promotion considerations. Additionally, the Employment Act of 2002, under the work place dispute resolution clause section 3 (29) (a), requires that employment disputes should be settled within the workplace, and only presented to an employment tribunal if the effort fails (Taylor, 2005 p19). In this case, Mr Rembiszewski had used the right channel of dispute resolution, by first protesting to the management of the company regarding his unfavourable treatment. However, the company aggravated the dispute by failing to address her grievances, instead, opting to fire him from the company. This, points to another failure on the part of the company to adhere to the provisions of the employment laws. Therefore, the company was liable to compensate Mr Rembiszewski for the duration he stayed without employment. Additionally, his lawyer observed that the company ought to reinstate him to work, besides giving him some consideration for promotion that he legally deserved. Therefore, according to the lawyer, the Employment Tribunal needed to act appropriately against the company, to ensure that the rights of the employees are protected. Finally, Mr Rembiszewski’s lawyer presented his argument against the conduct of the company, by noting that the company had failed to adhere to the legal requirements of the employment laws, through failing to grant Mr Rembiszewski reasonable notice. According to the Employment Act 2008 of the UK, section 3A, the dismissal of an employee should follow a given legal procedure (Smith, Thomas, & Smith, 2008 p70). First, the company should grant the employee a written notice of the intentions to dismiss him/her. Under this notice, all the reasons for his/her dismissal should be outlined and well explained (Taylor & Amir, 2010 p24). The company should then hold a meeting with the employee to formally inform him/her the intention (Landa, 2010 p12). Finally, the company should hold an appeal meeting to listen to the concerns of the employee and his/her defense, before making the final verdict (Painter & Holmes, 2011 p26). According to Mr Rembiszewski’s lawyer, the company violated this legal procedure, by dismissing him without holding the appeal meeting to listen to his concerns. Additionally, the Employment Act 2008 section 6 (2) (b), requires that an employee should be granted reasonable notice of dismissal (Taylor & Amir, 2010 p38). The Act provides that an employee who has worked for less than one year should be granted a notice of one week, two weeks for an employee who has worked for two years, and an extra week for each additional year worked, up to a maximum of 12 weeks (Lewis & Sargeant, 2012 p59). Considering that Mr Rembiszewski had worked with the company for 16 years, he deserved a reasonable notice of up to 12 weeks, yet he was only granted one week notice. This further contravened his legal rights as an employee. The company countered these arguments by arguing that it did not discriminate against Mr Rembiszewski. According to the company’s lawyer, the company was working to safeguard the company’s constitution, which required that the experience of various company positions be maintained at certain levels. Since the company did not have any other experienced design architect who would have taken up the position of Mr Rembiszewski, it considered it wise to retain him in this position, while it hired and trained another architect who would take up the position. According to the company’s lawyer, the Employment Act 2011 of the UK, section 4A requires that a company shall adhere to its constitution in running its affairs, a failure to which it is liable for the legal consequences (Jakes, 2010 p45). Therefore, the company was adhering to the Act, by maintaining the experience level of the company position as stipulated in its constitution. Additionally, the lawyer held that the company had not discriminated against Mr Rembiszewski in making its promotion considerations, since it had given him two promotions with a span of six years. Thus, he had been favorably considered. In his argument for Mr Rembiszewski’s dismissal, the company lawyer held that Rembiszewski had displayed his intentions to quit his position, if he was not promoted. Therefore, the company considered it better to dismiss him, since he had failed to display an open mind during his meeting with the company management. Therefore, it is out of his rigidity and tough stance that he got dismissed within a short notice and without the appeal meeting. The lawyer required the judges to consider that the company had appreciated Mr Rembiszewski’s efforts before and had even favored him through quick successive promotions. The judgment in this case was made based on the provisions of the employment laws of the UK. First, the judges held that the company had treated Mr Rembiszewski unfairly, by forcing him to continue holding the same position for many years, just because his experience was appropriate for the position. According the judges, this was a contravention of the company’s policies and section 12 (1) (d) of the Equality Act 2002, which requires that all employees should be treated equally, and none should be discriminated based on unreasonable grounds (Lewis & Sargeant, 2012 p47). Secondly, the court observed that the company had violated the dismissal procedure, by failing to grant Mr Rembiszewski an appeal meeting, as required by 2008 section 6 (2) (b) of the Employment Act 2008 (Pitt, 2011 p46). Additionally, the company had violated section 6(18) (a) of the Employment Act 2010 of the UK, which protected employees against intimidation and undue influence from their employers (Painter & Holmes, 2011 p40). The judges held that the company tried to intimidate Mr Rembiszewski, by firing him when he claimed his rights. Finally, the failure of the company to grant Mr Rembiszewski reasonable notice, as provided in Employment Act of 2008, further violated the employment laws (Taylor & Amir, 2010 p51). Considering that Mr Rembiszewski had followed the required dispute resolution procedure, besides having the right of consideration in promotions, the company had violated the employment laws, and thus it was liable. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of Rembiszewski, through requiring that he be reinstated pursuant to section 113 (a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and considered for promotion. References Duggan, M. (2000). Unfair dismissal: law, practice and guidance. Welwyn Garden City [England], CLT Professional Pub. Jakes, H. (2010). Workplace Law Handbook 2011: Employment Law and Human Resources Handbook. Cambridge, Workplace Law Group. Incomes Data Services. (2011). Transfer of undertakings. London, Incomes Data Services. Kidner R., (2011), Oxford, Blackstones Statutes on Employment Law, Oxford University Press. Landa C.S., (2010), Oxford, Directions Employment Law, 1st Edition, Oxford University Press Lewis D. and Sargeant M., (2012), Oxford, Law Concentrate Employment Law, Oxford University Press. Moffatt, J. (2011). Employment law. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Painter R. and Holmes A., (2011), Oxford, Cases and Materials on Employment Law, 8th Edition, Oxford University Press. Pitt, G. (2011) Employment Law, (8th ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell Smith, I. T., Thomas, G., & Smith, I. T. (2008). Smith & Woods employment law. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Taylor, S. (2005). People resourcing. London, Chartered Inst. of Personnel and Development Taylor S. and Amir E., (2010), Oxford, Employment Law an Introduction, 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press. Thavalingam, T. (2008). Constructive dismissal: commentaries and cases. Singapore, CCH Asia. Read More