Employment Law in Britain - Case Study Example

Employment Law in Britain: Accounting for Small Business Case Study Introduction The employment law in Britain is very comprehensiveas a consequence of numerous years of improvements done to ensure that there are in a state that can be considered appropriate. In its present form, the rule is a combination of both law of contract and the statute law. The combination can be said to form a balanced platform that protects the employees while also supporting the efforts of the employers. It is important to protect both set of interest of else the imbalance may result in an adverse outcome that may paralyse many work environments. However, Britain has found a way to have a favourable balance that summons interests from other bodies such as the European Union.1 The particulars of the employment law are extensive and provide an elaborate course of action to be adhered to at all time that revolves around all matters employment. This paper is an analysis of a case study that is also affiliated to the employment laws and strived to deduce the most appropriate actions that can be taken as provided by the law. Each scenario may require the use of lessons from different provisions of the laws so as to attain the most favourable outcome.2 Advice to Raj The initial consideration to be made in the case of Raj is to establish the type of employment he is in at the organization. There are three core kinds of employments provided for by the employment law of Britain; employee, worker, and self-employed. The task is to identify the kind of employment that Raj had with the organisation before dismissal. The intent of doing so is to establish a course of action provided for by the law. Each of these kinds of employment prescribe a specific set of provisions that can only be applicable with the verification of the employment type. In the case of Raj, the kind of employment is that of an employee. The kind of self-employment is out of the question since Raj works for an enterprise that is not his. It would be unheard-of to have to follow instructions and be dismissed in one’s own business. The exception of being a worker is due to the availability of a better alternative; an employee. Case Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v. Minister of Pensions [1968] 2 QB 497 sheds more light into the matter and verifies that there is a viable contract in place like that described in the case. There is also no contribution of the union, which many workers are members of. The only and most fitting position that Raj would meet is that of being an employee at AFSB.3 An employee is one of the most protected individual by the employment law being discussed in this case. The most operational instruments in the quest to protect an employee are the contract of employment. All employment rights in Britain are contained in the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996).4 All of the relationship kinds described above are administrated by a pact of employment which is an accord regulating the mutual obligations of the employer and employee. Form of employment is not a determining factor since the contract of employment is present in all instances. This contract does not need to be in written procedure and contracted by both parties to be legally binding like in the case Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v. Minister of Pensions [1968] 2 QB 497. 5A contract is legally deemed to be valid once an employee accepts the terms of employment and begins to work. In the case of Raj, there was a contract of employment since he was already working at the organisation.6 Once it has been established that Raj was working as an employee at the firm and that there was a bidding contract, it is then providing an opportunity to stage a case for him. The initial assessments include assessing the provisions provided by the law with regards to people working as employees. According to the law, employees are principally entitled the right not to be unfairly dismissed, receive written particulars of employment, receive minimum periods of notice, and the right to request to work flexibility.7 The case between Autoclenz v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41 exemplifies this provision. Although there are many more rights for this specific employment bracket, these are the key ones that relate to the case of Raj. Two of the most notable rights being that Raj is only supposed to be dismissed fairly and that he should also receive the particulars of the employment. By this time, it is already clear that Raj is entitled to these rights because of the presence of a valid contract, despite the fact that it is not mentioned in the case study. Raj has a case if he feels that he was unfairly discharged from his duties; it is wrong for an employer to do so. The right for an employee to receive the particulars of the employment means that they are aware of the terms, and hence the contract is bidding. But the main problem in this case seems to have been as a result of instructions that do not pertain the particulars contained in the ‘contract.’ Raj hence can make a case that he was not liable to do as requested by Sarah. Section 95 of the ERA 1996 protects employees from wrongful dismissal, and Raj can use this to make his case.8 Although it might seem like Raj has an upper hand in the case, there is a simple and yet burly aspect to the entire issue that may change its entire course; the use of foul language by Raj. The employment law protects stakeholders in the sector, but it is only viable where those who seek protection abide by it or any other laws that may be present. There is a distinct way that the law is made to support others, and in no way weaken them or make them ineffective. The use of foul language is one that may turn the case in favour of the employer, to the infuriation of Raj. 9 The ERA 1996 is there to enable workplaces to be fair productive grounds in a way to take Britain to greater heights, but even it cannot back the use of foul language. The employer can hence make a case that the dismissal was a result of the use of inappropriate language at the workplace, and Raj would have little to say to that. In such an instance, the employer can state that they were exercising the provision in the ERA 1996 that allow them to terminate the employment (contract) because of reasonable causes. It is intricate to contest this since the law will be viewed as exposing the employer to the employees, whilst its main role is to protect them.10 Advice Overall, it seems like Raj has a good chance of winning the case as a result of the potential inability of the employer to validate the use of foul language by Raj. The Mixed Concrete Ltd v. Minister of Pensions [1968] 2 QB 497 is very similar to this one. Initially, all that is reported by Sarah was that Raj stated that he was not willing nor ready to be picked on and that he was hesitant to accept to accept Sarah as having more authority than him. These assertions may be deemed as foul by some, but seem legitimate to a large extent. Raj, with the witnesses available, can claim that he was defending himself from Sarah, who has previously been described as unduly authoritarian. He also refused to do as requested since the employment contract did not stipulate that as his role. Advice to Dennis The case for Dennis is a bit unique, yet more complicated. There seems to be little that the ERA 1996 can do to help since it looks like internal laws within the organization is supposed to find a tentative solution to the stalemate between Sarah and Dennis. Unlike Raj, no action has been taken and hence the influence of the ERA 1996 cannot do much to assist. This is sought of issue that the managing director, Glen Jacques, should take care of but fails to do so. One notable issue about the case of Dennis is that there were tensions at the workplace even before the Raj incident which had a lot to do with Sarah. This is definitely not the best manner to run an organisation that seeks to be effective. One of the emerging trends in the business world is that employers are coming to terms with the significant role that their employees play in the overall performance.11 As such, many organisations have come to view the employees as the most valuable assets at their disposal and come up with strategies such as talent management to surge total output. A setting like that at AFSB goes contrary to all these beliefs by harbouring an ineffective workplace.12 Raj seems to be stuck with the ideology of arguing his case seeing to it that he has a good chance of the outcomes going his way. On the other hand, Dennis appears to have a number of ways that he can deal with the issue of Sarah. One of the most common ways many would handle the matter, but one that is not supported by the employment law is by remaining silent and avoiding any form of confrontations with Sarah. It is apparent that going against her such as the case of Raj does not have any room to have their cases fairly addressed. Contesting the views of Sarah by Dennis may hold similar outcomes as those of Raj, so one way of retaining his position in the organisation is by adhering to what Sarah would like done, and hoping that it will not have to last for long. This is practical advice and may not be applicable in the case of employment law. Grievances Procedures The employment law does allow for the fair hearing of grievances from employees. The fair nature of these hearings is backed by the ability of the organisation to designate an individual with no interests in the case to deal with it. The law provides an elaborate framework under which this can be achieved. The initial prerequisite is that every organisation should have a well laid out platform on which grievances are supposed to be addressed. Most organisation vest this duty to the human resource department as it is best knowledgeable on ways to deal with others.13 Some of the provisions in the law require the employee to be accompanied by another if the issue affects a large portion of the employees as provided for in the Goold (Pearmark) Ltd v. McConnell [1995] IRLR 516 case. The managing director of AFBS, Glen Jacques, is the one who seems to be addressing these grievances, but does not seem to be doing it in a professional manner. Initially, the only reasonable advice to give Dennis would be that the grievances should be taken to the managing director, but the prior incident provided room for a more rudimentary approach to the matter; remaining silent. In there are any other ways of expressing grievances such as through the human resource department, Dennis should try to use it7. Resignation One way of termination of employment provided for by the law in this case is that of resignation. If there are other posts that Dennis can assume at other organisations, it is better to park and leave. The law allows him to resign from his current position. 8 The reason why this is a way out of the issue is because there is little room to work as he should at AFSB. The unprofessional nature of operations, particularly by the managing director shows that there is little room for Dennis to mould a career in the organisation.14 Advice In such a case where there are grievances that need to be addressed, the best solution is to communicate with the designated individual. The problem being the individual is unprofessional about the matter, and this leaves Dennis with no other legal alternatives. Another solution would be to resign since the workplace at AFSB seems inadequate to advance a career. Maintaining silence is the last option where every other option is exhausted. References Collins, H., Ewing, K., D., and McColgan, A. Labour Law, Text, Cases and Materials (2nd edn, Hart 2005) Deacon, S and Morris, G,. (2012) Labour Law, 6th ed. Hart15 Ewing, K., D. ‘The Information and Consultation of Employees’ Regulations: Voluntarism Bitter Legacy’ (2005) 68 MLR 612, 623 Freedland, M. Employment: Chitty on Contracts (30th edn, Sweet and Maxwell 2009) Hepple, B (2011). Equality, the New Legal Framework. Hart Publishing Parliament, ‘Employment Rights Act 1996’ (legislation 1996) accessed 24 February 2014 Smith, I & Baker, A (2013) Employment Law, 11th ed. OUP Wedderburn, W., K. ‘Employees, Partnership and Company Law (2002) 31(2) ILJ 93, 104-7 Read More