Individual Employment Law under Family and Friendly Right - Coursework Example

Individual Employment Law under Family and Friendly Right Question One Individual Employment Law under the Family andFriendly Act is fast-moving, as well as challenging and modern. This makes most employment lawyers go for huge experience influxes of work because of the various changes in the legislation (Barber 2004). A large part of this has focused on family and friendly rights with most changes occurring due to the many developments in both domestic and European legislation. Employment law has a wide coverage of areas, including employee relations, redundancy programs, restructuring advices, as well as contractual rights together with employment statutory rights in both Tribunals and High Courts (Harveycamford 2011). The same law applies to the case of Bruce who believes he has all the rights to take an emergency leave and still not face a disciplinary action. Bruce has the right to take care of his family. Being an employee of the Royal Mail for over fifteen years, his potential is worth being realized by the employer. The respective committee should not take his misfortunes, which rendered him to take an emergency leave as the root to any disciplinary actions against him. First, it should be understood that uncertainties can happen at any given point in life, which would certainly interfere with any person’s schedule of activities and their job as well. In this case, having to take his wife, Mary, to the hospital or even offer care to her, due to her serious illness, should not be mistaken for any other cause of the absence. Further, before leaving, he went ahead to leave a short notice about his intention to take the leave (Farnham 2000). The law provides for any employee, the right to get some time off or a leave, in the case of illnesses or the need to carry out other responsibilities, which may be proven crucial on the basis of such provisions. However, despite the given notice to his organization regarding his short leave, the best he could do was to consider the greater priority between the job, and taking care of the family emergency (Dale 2000). He could possibly have adjusted to the situation, since her mother, who would have accompanied his wife to the hospital, got ill. Since this happened, there was no option left for him but to take on the situation forgoing the time and the responsibilities he would have spent at work. However, the best thing for Bruce to do was to make adjustments regarding the laid down plans known to the employers. This he did by calling the line manager the soonest possible. However, the act on medical leave, gives an allowance for all eligible workers, to take a leave of up to twelve weeks every year, without any fears of disciplinary actions such as losing their jobs. This leave provision applies to those organizations with fifty employees or more, working within the same location of the employee seeking the leave. This may have been ignored, when the decision to punish Bruce for his change of plans by extending his leave, was taken. The leave also applies to those workers, who have spend more than twelve months with an employee, or at least twelve months; registered working hours of at least 1,250 hours a year, before the time of taking the leave according to Lewis (2008). Based on the Act provisions discussed through this source, Bruce is qualified for this leave, since he had been working with Royal Mail for over 15 years. The same act has its scope with which to protect. There are certain circumstances that are covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act. Beyond such circumstances, his employee could impose a penalty on the person taking his time off from work accordingly. Such circumstances include the birth of a child or its adoption, the care of a child belonging to the employee, care for his or her spouse or parent. These have to be in a serious medical condition for the employee to deserve the leave. It could also be done if the employee has some serious medical condition. This scope is within the decision taken by Bruce. He had initially given the responsibility of taking care of his wife to his mother-in-law. However, since she was at the time, seriously suffering from diabetes, she could not take care of his wife any longer; therefore, Bruce had to take over for at least one more day. However, if he could use the chance for some other reasons such as caring for a non-immediate family member, such as his mother-in-law or any other person who is not related to Bruce, according to these acts, he would not be covered from facing disciplinary action from the committee. Further, considering his act of calling to notify the organization about his immediate cause of action, he could be pardoned for his actions. He could also strengthen his credibility of not receiving punitive action by submitting a certificate from the doctor or from the hospital, showing the seriousness of his wife’s medical condition (Harveycamford 2011). From another perspective, leave should be taken as important as any other organizational project, though should be viewed as purposive. Despite the fact that sometimes there are benefits, such as health insurance in the employment plan, most of these other benefits could remain valid for people like Bruce. Therefore, this should not form the basis for the disciplinary action to be taken by the committee (Hall 2002). Based on such provisions, there would be no chances for the cancelation of his insurance benefits among any other benefits, just because he had taken a day off without prior written notice, as long as he continued to pay all the premium dues. During the day of returning to work, he was in a position to reclaim his job. In the case the vacancy had been offered to another employee, he could restructure the claim, to get a job position that is equivalent to the initially held position at the same organization. The demands of such a claim would include effects like same pay, similar benefits as well as other employment conditions that would place at an employment status comparable to that held at the initial job position (Waltman 2007). This implies that the punitive action he was to be taken through would not take the line of losing his job, the lowering of his employment position at the organization or a reduction of the benefits scale. At the time of calling, in order to see his manager – who informed him that he was subject to facing a disciplinary meeting, was a case that would warrant a written warning. After receiving such a warning, he would have prepared himself regarding defending himself before the punitive committee. From the opportunity to defend himself, he would be able to show the committee that he was entitled to an emergency leave at any time, depending on the seriousness of the case in question. However, this had to be within the provision of the Family and Medical Law Act, which offers the previsions of the credibility of such a move (Pitt 2008). He should also understand that an employee could only be fired or served with a stun warning, in the case the emergency leave taken was not within the provisions of the act. In this case, the reason for his action has to be protected by the Act of law in order to create a basis of defense for his claim. Question Two The flexible working provisions under s.80F Employment Rights Act 1996 would best apply to those individuals with certain responsibilities, for instance, a parent of children under the age of six years. This case could also apply to the parent of a disabled child, which could apply to the case of Miriam, in case she specified the age of her young children. Therefore, based on Miriam’s position as an assistant solicitor; there are various reasons why her request for flexible working, should not be honored under the provisions of section.80F of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Hall 2002). This would include the following: Miriam, the assistant solicitor in the specified firm – your request to work on flexible working conditions (from 9.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m., three times a week), to enable you spend more time with your children, has been declined. This is because your specification for the age category of your children is not clear; therefore, you cannot be covered by the flexible working provisions under section 80F of the Employment Rights Act 1996. This is the case the entitlement to the flexible working provisions under s.80F of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires that an applicant should have children who are under the age of six years or disabled (The City Law School 2008). Since you have no children below the specified age or disabled, according to your specification, you are not eligible for the request. It is also required that you make an application in advance to the organization and its partners, in order ensure the verifications of the contract, after which it would be convenient for you as an individual, to take care of any individual of the age of 18 years and above (Roberts 2012). Your young children are not specified, since a young person could be any person below the age of 18 years. This case may have applied, in the case the request had been done accordingly. In addition, you have not clearly specified the duration, within which you have been for the firm. This is an area of importance, since the provision does not apply to employees who have worked for less than 26 weeks at the organization in question. However, it is clear that your are the mother of the children in question, who you need to take care of, during the extra time to be offered by the provisions. Therefore, the application should have clearly stated all these discussed areas of importance, as well as that it is under flexible working provisions, which is under s section 80F of the Employment Rights Act 1996, according to Roberts (2012). However, there is an opportunity for a reapplication, which has to be fashioned in accordance to provisions of flexible working provisions under s.80F of the Employment Rights Act of 1996. In the application, you should clearly state the age of the children, the relationship that exists between you and the children, as well as the change that you want to apply for (Roberts 2012). This has to include the exact time of initiating the change. It is also good to indicate the effects that the change would have to the firm and the likely effects that the flexibility of your job would have to your family and your life in general (Harveycamford 2011). Again, state your opinion concerning the adjustments that the firm could make, to avoid any possible losses. This is the only way that you would be in a better position to get the change for flexible working conditions, which you had requested earlier. Bibliography Barber, B., 2004.Transforming Britains work places. Family-Friendly Rights, pp. 34-78. Dale, I., 2000. Liberal Party (Great Britain), Labour Party (Great Britain), Labour Party general election manifestos, 1900-1997. Routledge Press, London. Farnham, D., 2000. Employee relations in context, Institute of Personnel and Development, 2nd Ed. CIPD Publishing, London. Hall, M., 2002. Employment Act 2002 outlined. European industrial relations observatory on-line. Eironline, [online]. Available at: [Accessed on June 23 2012]. Harveycamford. 2011, Compromise agreements. Harvey Camford LLP [online]. Available at: [Accessed on June 23 2012]. Lewis, D., 2008. Employment law, 4th Ed. Pearson Education, London. Pitt, G., 2008. Cases and materials on employment law, 3rd Ed. Pearson Education, London. Roberts, K., 2012. Employment. [online]. Available at: [Accessed on June 23 2012]. The City Law School. 2008. Employment law in practice, 8th Ed. Oxford University Press, London. Waltman, J., 2007. Minimum wage policy in Great Britain and the United States, Algora Publishing, New York. Read More