Business and Employment Law - Coursework Example

Business and Employment Law Introduction The issue of employee dismissal has been contentious for a long time. Controversies emergeas some employees feel that their dismissal was not lawful or that the employer overreacted by dismissing them. Different laws stipulates on circumstances through which employees can be dismissed from work by their employer. Additionally, employees have the liberty to leave their place of work voluntarily depending on the circumstances that face them at the time of making the decision to call it quit (Goldman & Corrada, 2011). The case of Raj and Dennis is not different from many cases of unfair dismissal that face many employees. This paper aims at articulating on circumstances through which Raj was dismissed and the circumstances that led to Dennis decide to call it quit. With such deliberations, both employees will be adequately advised on the best course of action in regard to their circumstances thereof. The case of Raj Having worked for AFSB for a period of three years, Raj is definitely very instrumental to the company. However, there are issues that revolve around conduct of employees and their professionalism that make them productive employees. After Sarah was hired as the new office manager, there were things that were expected upon her employment. First, it is apparent that her way of doing things is different from that of any other employee including those that she succeeded. Second, it translates to introduction of new leadership traits that may at times be seen as tough and arrogant depending on what the other employees are accustomed. Having noted some laxity especially on the issue of punctuality, Sarah decided to notify all employees and the measures she intended to take to any employee who reported to work late. She decided that anyone that shows up late in the place of work would be asked to do additional work as form of disciplinary measures. Coincidentally, Raj was late the next morning as the train was late. Raj apologized to Sarah, but she could not take it lightly. This is what consequently led to the dismissal of Raj as he was accused by Sarah for having refused to obey a lawful instruction. With such deliberations, it is indispensable for Raj initially comprehend what the law says about unlawful dismissal from place of work. First, the law requires that the employer must provide a valid or justifiable reason why an employee should be dismissed from work. For instance, in the case of [1978] UKEAT 108_78_2007, the judge noted that the employment tribunal had to decide the case depending on whether the misconduct of the employee was so serious and reasonable to call for employer to dismiss the employee. In this regard, the employer should show that the employee acted reasonably in the circumstances that makes the employer come to conclusion that the employee was no longer in a position to continue working in the firm (Walsh, 2012). In light of this, Raj cannot have strong ground through which he can sue the company since Glen, the managing director conducted a thorough investigation to the circumstances that led to Raj’s being subjected to the disciplinary measures and the fact that Raj actually used vague language to Sarah. Witnesses confirmed Raj as having disobeyed and used vague language on Sarah. Therefore, it would not be possible for Raj to accuse the firm for failure to conduct full investigation. In addition, although there is a ground that Raj can sue the firm for his dismissal in regard to being inconsistent in its approach to dismissal, Raj have no grounds on this because there are no accounts of the firm having retained other employees that committed the same mistakes that Raj did. Therefore, it would be difficult for Raj to have a reasonable ground on this to qualify to be a considerate case against the firm. However, Raj can have a reasonable ground to accuse the firm for dismissing him without notice. The law stipulates the necessity for the employer to give an employee a notice period before dismissing them (Repa, 2010). Nevertheless, an employee can be dismissed immediately for gross misconduct like if the employee acted violently in the place of work. In the case of Raj, the company did not find any gross misconduct that could have triggered immediate dismissal. In fact, all Raj did was to protest against what he thought was demeaning him by telling him to clean; the work done by cleaners. In addition, Glen did not give any room for Raj to appeal citing that all witnesses confirmed his misconduct. The fact is that this was the first incidence of Raj to report to work late. There were no other incidences reported for him having come to work late, in fact, it was barely one day after Sarah issued a warning about the issue of lateness. Therefore, it would have been better if Sarah issued a warning to Raj since it was the first incidence of being late after she issued the warning. In addition, Raj accepted the mistake being late and even apologised to Sarah, but she did not give him another chance. Therefore, Raj can request or reinstatement since he has been an excellent worker and that he has never been warned about the same mistake before. In another dimension, Raj could file complaint against the dismissal procedure executed by the firm. For instance, Glen did not give written reasons for his dismissal. An employee is entitled to a detailed written reason for this dismissal if his work period exceeds 1 year (Baker, et al., 2010). Raj had worked for the company for three years. Therefore, he was entitled to written reasons for dismissal. The argument could be that the firm failed to give written reasons for dismissal because he was unlawfully dismissed and that the circumstances that led to his dismissal were not serious to call for his dismissal. Another account on which Raj can sue the firm for unfair dismissal is the fact that the law provides that an employee can be dismissed fairly if he is unable to perform their duties (Sprack, 2008). In the case of Raj, he can argue that he performed his duties to perfection and that there was no incident that connects his dismissal that can be cited to having been unable to perform his duties. Another basis on which an employee can be dismissed is in regard to persistently being ill. In the case of Raj, there was no incident related to his dismissal that indicated that he was persistently sick and that this made him fail to attend to his work. The case of Dennis The case of Dennis is no different from that of Raj in bigger account. Raj refused to do the extra work of cleaning given by Sarah because he thought that it was demeaning him. He explained himself why he was late and even apologised but Sarah did not listen to him. Some of these accounts are what made Dennis launch complaints to the managing director. There were adverse arguments between Sarah and Dennis before in regard to the conduct of Sarah. Dennis complained that she was unduly authoritarian in her relations with staff and that she picked some staff do demeaning work. With such deliberations, it is apparent that the relationship between Sarah and Dennis was not adding up. Perhaps, when Raj was dismissed for having disobeyed Sarah when requested to do the work of a cleaner, Dennis felt that Sarah was pushing things further and that it was time to report the matter to the managing director. This, however, angered the boss, something that led him circulate an email to all staff detaining that the conduct of people like Dennis was not to be condoned because it amounted to disobeying authority which is bestowed to Sarah. With these accounts, the case of Dennis could be related to the case of JJ Food Service Ltd v Kefil UKEAT/0320/12/SM. In this case, the manager was dismissed from his place of work for being over-authoritarian to his junior staff. Although the employment tribunal termed his dismissal as being unfair, the court of appeal rejected the tribunal ruling and overruled its judgment terming the dismissal justified. With such facts, Dennis can decide to sue the firm for neglecting employees’ complaints that made their work difficult. This translates to the employer subjecting the employees to unfavourable working conditions by allowing the manager to mistreat them (Blanpain, 2008). He can cite the example of Raj, who was dismissed unlawfully and without strong grounds. It is the misunderstanding of the same person that led to dismissal of Raj. In addition, Dennis can sue the firm for tarnishing his name to fellow employees by the managing director circulating an email aimed at portraying how unprofessional and disobedient Dennis was. Therefore, Dennis is at liberty to request for compensation for damages caused. Conversely, Dennis can also request for reinstatement to the firm because it is the circumstances of misconduct of the managing director that made him decide to leave. Were it not because of the managing director tarnishing his name, he would have continued working for the firm. In addition, the managing director did not listen to his grievances. Dennis can also sue the company for compensation in regard to psychological torture he underwent under the leadership of Sarah. The firm should be responsible for failing to handle employees’ grievances as required by the law. The obligation of the employer is to ensure good working conditions of all employees (Welch & Strevens, 2013). This includes taking care of their psychological needs while at place of work. This was not the case to AFSB because the firm did not have a committee mandated to listen to employee complains. In another dimension, Dennis is at liberty to sue the firm for compensation of the months he has been without the job since he left the firm. The firm failed to offer conducive working environment, something that made Dennis quit. Therefore, for all those months he has been out, his salary should be paid by the employer. Conclusion Any employee is entitled to fair treatment at his place of work. The same case applies to dismissal decisions. All employees should be dismissed lawfully and in a just manner. It is apparent that Sarah demeaned her juniors and this led to psychological torture to the employees. Raj is at liberty to sue the firm to reinstate him and compensate him for the months he has been out of work. Dennis is also at liberty to sue the firm to compensate him for the time he has been out of work because the firm failed to protect the interest and wellbeing of him by allowing the manager to mishandle her juniors. Dennis can also argue that the firm failed to have a committee that should be listening to employee companies. However, both Raj and Dennis must provide enough evidence to the industrial court by even calling witnesses that would be used to strengthen their case against the firm. This way, their cases will have strong base that would require scrutiny of the jury when deciding on the cases. Their cases are strong because they point to the same issue of unfair dismissal and unfair treatment in the place of work form one firm. References: Goldman, A. & Corrada, R. (2011). Labour law in the USA. Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. Repa, B. (2010). Your rights in workplace. Berkeley: Nolo. Walsh, D. (2012). Employment law for human resource practice. Mason. Cengage Learning. Sprack, J. (2008). Employment law and practice. London: Sweet & Maxwell. Baker, J., et al. (2010). Comparative labour law and industrial relations in industrialized market economies. Alphen aan den Rijn: Aspen Publishers. Blanpain, R. (2008). European labour law. Alphen aan den Rijn [etc.]: Kluwer Law International, cop. Welch, R. & Strevens, C. (2013). Employment law. Harlow: Longman. British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell [1978] UKEAT 108_78_2007 (20 July 1978) JJ Food Service Ltd v Kefil UKEAT/0320/12/SM Read More