Employment Laws: The Rights of Individuals against Prejudice of any Form in Their Places of Work - Case Study Example

Employment Laws Introduction The federal government and other organizations have guidelines which directs on how those institutes are governed. The state laws also exist to reinforce the private laws and compensate the grieve party fairly (Mark, 11) For example, where a party or both parties to a certain union like employment treaty feels that he or she has been treated unfairly; they may seek mediation in order to arrive at a solution. When resolving the dispute, the suffering party is entitled to compensation and may be reinstated to the previous position s/he were before the occurrence of the argument. These laws ensure that parties in a union discharge their duties fairly in order to evade legal accusation. Case 7.6; Chapter 7, page 265: Boys Markets, Inc. V. Retail Clerks Union, Local 778 Supreme Court of the United States, (1970). The employment disagreement in Sinclair Refining Co. V. Atkinson, 30 was caused by the courts failure to forbid the labour union from enforcing a workers boycott as a solution to the disagreement between workers and the employer. The matters concerning the employers and the employees require little intervention by the court and the parties involved should resolve their differences in affable environment if possible. This is due to the fact that these issues require a solution which does not disadvantage either of the parties and create a friendly atmosphere. The workers boycott in the case of Sinclair was against the agreement which prohibited any strike and support for mediation in the case of any dispute. Therefore, for the court to intervene in the issues involving employers and workers they rely on the agreement between the parties and the matter must be one which requires arbitration (Mark, 15). The federal court however did not enforce the employer-workers agreement, but instead they allowed the boycott to continue. There was a feeling that the decision taken by the federal court was insufficient and against the employment agreement which advocated the mediation and prohibited the strike as a solution to the disagreement between the parties. According to Mark (22) the federal district courts have inadequate authority to implement contractual obligations between the employers and their employees, or to alter rulings by another court. The matter presented before the Supreme Court regards the ruling of the federal court regarding employers and employees agreement. Their conditions of employment prohibit the workers from taking part in boycott and advocate mediation in case of disagreement. However, the federal court failed to enforce this covenant although after the workers boycott. This matter was presented to the Supreme Court for further interpretation of the employment agreement. The employers felt that the court should have enforced the agreement by forbidding the workers strike since their agreement categorical that they should be no strike. According to the majority the doctrine of stare decisis does not hinder review of the Sinclair ruling in any way. This principle enables the court to deliver justice effectively and timely by using preceding verdict of the court to decide on a similar present issue. This also enables the courts to arrive at harmonious verdicts and avoid any embarrassment when making their judgment (Mark, 37). A court ruling can be reviewed by another court in a superior rank in case the parties feel discontented by the decision of the inferior court. Therefore, this principle is not a hindrance, but a basis for making consistent decisions by the court hence creating trust among the public. In case the matter causing disagreement between the employer and the employees requires mediation and this is clearly stipulated in the employment agreement, the district will not grant injunctive relief as long as that clause agreement is in force. Also, the employer will be required to mediate in opposition to the boycott. In addition, the district court will take into consideration whether the violation of the agreement have occur or is threatened to occur by the actions of the parties (Mark, 31). This will therefore require and interpretation of the terms of employment and the extent to which they have been violated or probability for violation. Case 8.1; Chapter 8, Page 279: IUE and General Electric Co. 74 Lab. Arb.338 While it is not unusual for parties in an agreement such employer and the employee to disagree, sometimes it becomes necessary for the parties to seek attention of a mediator bring their differences to a halt. The contending parties have absolute authority to decide on who will mediate between them and even the place where mediation will be conducted (Mark, 24). In this case, the employer and the employee’s union have the mandate to authorize the negotiation and decide on how the case will be conducted. This principle helps to reduce haphazardness in some situations where a person is required to do something which s/he feels that it was not his or her obligation to do so. However, by not doing what a person has been requested to do puts him or her in an awkward circumstance because it amounts to unreliability or lack of knowledge hence resulting to a legal matter. According to Mark (19) in order to avoid such an awkward situation a person should abide by this principle whereby, an employee should first do what s/he is requested to do by the employer against the terms of employment and then instigate a grievance later if need be. Section 8(a) (3) of the international labour relations shields employers against any form of prejudice by their employers. The prejudice may occur during recruitment of the workers or during normal discharge of their duties. Based on this information the employer acted fairly by requesting the worker to provide him with vital information of which was the employee’s duty to do so. Therefore, the employee could not succeed against the employer under section 8(a) (3) because there was no impartiality by the employer. Case 10.1; Chapter10, Page 340: National Aeronautics and Space Administration V. FLRA Supreme Court of the United States, 527 U.S.229 (1999) When declaring the verdict in this case, the chief justice ruled in favor of the employees. The justice took into consideration the liberty bestowed inspector general under “Inspector General Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. S 1 et seq” and passed the ruling that the Office of Inspector General (OIG) was not in a capacity to male such a representation. Therefore, OIG was not an agent of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Therefore, since OIG was not acting on behalf of NASA according the court verdict, the employees could not have anything to worry about since the findings of the investigations were invalid and could be used for any action against them. According to S 7114 (a) (2) (B) of the International Labour Relation provides the rights of indistinguishable representation for the employees who are under scrutiny regardless of the agency making the scrutiny. However, the process and security of the employees wishing to be represented is stipulated in Federal Service Labor Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS), 5 U.S.C. s 7101 et seq. Therefore, the employees can have representation from any agency under the above legal acts. Case10.2; Chapter 10, P.341: Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization v. FLRA U.S. Court of Appeals, 110 LLRM 2676 (D.C. CJR. 1982. According to “section 706 (g) of the civil rights Act of 1964” any employee who was discriminated by the employer is entitled to payment of all the amount s/he was supposed to earn since the time of termination from the work and also all other dues and allowances from the time of filing a case to the court until the day of issuing of verdict. The Civil Rights Acts of 1991 revised Civil Rights Act of 1964 with an aim of reinforcing civil rights law to provide compensation to the employees who have been discriminated. It also aimed at giving clarifications to the issues stated in the acts of 1964. Therefore, this provided greater benefits to the employees by granting employers cases to be tried by panel of judges and compensation for the emotional indemnity (Mark, 17). These were not provided for in the 1964 civil rights Acts. The front pay includes compensation for the actual loss incurred after the filing of the case before the court and also the psychological torture the employee undergoes following the prejudice at the work place. According to Mark (12) these prejudices may be of various forms such as on the basis of religion, gender or disability among others. Case 12.4; Chapter 12, page 422: Feldstein V. Christian Monitor U.S. District Court, 30 Feb 1842 (E.D. Mass. 1983) The Christian Science is excluded from the act of inequity during the hiring processes of their workers because their missions and policies are exclusively Christian oriented. Their very nature of existence is to deal with Christian matters and has right of law to recruit only Christians in order to accomplish their goals (Mark, 23). Therefore, they do not contravene the title VII by failing to accept non Christians in their work force. Christian Church has its goals and as a religious organization, they have to protect their image in line with their mission. Therefore, they should hire people who will safeguard the image of their organizations hence they should ensure they hire Christians. Therefore, regardless of the work the employees perform in the organization, whether religious or secular they should be focused of the organizational objectives (Mark, 26). Therefore, they do not contravene the law by hiring fellow Christians to perform non-religious activities in the organization. Conclusion The various laws exist to protect the rights of individuals against prejudice of any form in their places of work. Where the employer feels that s/he has been treated unfairly by the employers’ they should seek court intervention or, mediation in order for them to obtain remedy for the loss they suffered. There are some exemptions regarding employers unfairness such when an n organization if establish by a specific groups such as Christians in order to serve a specific role. They may hire Christians in order to meet their organization goals without contravening the law. Works Cited Mark, Freedland. Application of Labour and Employment Law beyond the Contract of Employment: International Labour Review, Vol. 146(½). (International Labour Review, 2007) Read More