Employee Responsibility at Softy Furnishings Ltd - Assignment Example

Question Advise Abbie as to whether she is obliged to use the new equipment. In order to advice Abbie, it is in order to lookat the legal and practical matters that relate to the situation. On one hand, Softy Furnishing seeks to improve performance by using the new machine while on the other hand Abbie feels that she is fine and would not want to have training on how to use the equipment that would speed up production despite the offer to be trained on the equipment. Once an employer and an employee have agreed on an employment contract, changing the terms of the employment would be a breach; if done without the consent of the either party. However, since circumstances change over time, it is in order to expect certain things to change overtime and these would require adjustments as presented in the case above. The question, therefore, is whether the change proposed by Roz to Abbie amount to significant change in express terms and implied terms of the employment contract. Since the factors that have necessitated the change are relevant, the change does not have a negative consequence to Abbie. Management has promised to train her to adapt to the new way of doing things; she seem reluctant.1 Employee responsibility In course of discharging her duties, like other employees Abbie should ensure that she affirms an implied term of good faith and fidelity. Her refusal to adapt to change and make use of the new machine to improve efficiency is a deliberate attempt to break the term. The concepts of good faith and fidelity were elaborated in the case of Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler. 2In this case the defendant had misused position to gain certain information fraudulently. It relates to Abbie’s case given that it demonstrates the need for ensuring good faith and fidelity. Refusal to use a new machine would breach good faith and fidelity. It is an implied term that employee should respect reasonable directions. Introduction of, “very fast equipment” is reasonable by all standards. Tribunal held that failure to respect reasonable direction would amount to justified dismissal3. Similarly, employees are tasked with adapting to new techniques at work place so long as the new techniques do not alter the jobs done by employees.4 The firm has introduced a more efficient machine that would not change the job done by Abbie. On the contrary, it will improve speed of working. The employer would have justification to demote her as was evident in the case of Johnstone v W Wilson and Sons5 . Abbie as an employee has a responsibility to take care of employer’s equipment and machinery. This means that there is an implied condition that while making use of both the old and new machinery she has a duty to use them in a manner that would ensure their longevity. Employer responsibility The employer has a duty (Implied term) to offer a safe working environment, while making use of the new machine. There is no indication of any kind that the new machine introduced would harm her.6 An employer has an implied duty to listen to employee’s grievances and offer solutions to them. The company has listened to her grievances and offered solutions. Abbie claimed that she cannot use the new machine s she has traditionally used the manual system. However, Roz, representing management has indicated to her that she would be offered the requisite training that would enable use the new machines. The aspect of timely response to grievances was elaborated in the case of W A Goold (Pearmak) Ltd v McConnell7.There is an implied condition that the employer should offer workers a safe and competent work force. This was elaborated in the case of Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Co8. In this case the plaintiff was injured as a result of a fellow employees fault (pranks). Despite knowledge of continuous pranks the employee did nothing to control the notorious employee. This means that Softy Furnishing ltd should employ employees whose interactions with Abbie would not harm her. There is no indication that using the new machine would make any other employees harm her. The employer equally owes employees safety while using equipment and machinery9. On the same note, employers are obligated to listen to employees grievances with relations to use of nay machines or equipment’s in course of discharging their work. This means that Abbie is owed an obligation by Soft ltd Furnishing to ensure safety while using the new machine. Her complaints on the same machine should be taken into account. This was clearly elaborated in the case of British Aircraft Corporation v Austin10. Conclusion Given all the deliberations stated above it is clear that both employers and employees have a duty to make the employment contract work. This is done by following both implied and express terms of a contract. There are certain universal implied terms of contract that have been held over the years. The most significant that relates to this case is the implied term that an employee should obey reasonable and lawful order given by an employee. In this regard, Abbie has an obligation to follow the instructions given and use the new equipment. The employer has promised to train her on how to use the new equipment; there is no justification to refuse to use the equipment as doing so would be considered a breach of implied term and lead to dismissal on basis of redundancy. As provided for in the law the employer has a duty to ensure safety to employees while using equipment and machinery. Employees have a duty to report any difficulties they encounter; in this respect, Abbie should agree to be trained to use equipment and report any problems encountered while using the equipment. In the deliberations it is evident that the use of the contract is in her contract given that employers are supposed to take direction from employers so long as the directions are within the reasonable standards in the course of the work. Secondly, the question does not arise as to whether she has the qualifications because it is clear that the employer was willing to offer her training on the use of the new equipment. Question 2: Advise Roz as to any action she can take in relation to the comments made by Dennis Roz was brought to the company to work and help the company to achieve its target. However, from the look of things, it is evident that she is bullied and discriminated against based on her sex. The law 11clearly prohibits any form of discrimination or bullying on the basis of sex, race, marital status and all other forms of discrimination. The same Act, above clearly stipulates that employers ( management of the companies )should ensure that they discourage discrimination of any kind and that should be done by altering working conditions and practices as well as providing various equipment to the vulnerable workers. It follows that Dennis’ assertions that, he will deal with the men in the firm as well as the statement that, “his word is final” are meant to perpetuate discrimination to Roz on the basis of her sex. The law seeks to prohibit acts that could bully an employee in the work place. It is evident that the intimidation that is directed to Roz could hamper her efforts in the work place and could eventually bully out of the job since she does not feel secure. As such, courts have held that such actions cannot be tolerated; and this was evident in the case Stone v. Lancaster Chamber of Commerce.12 In this case it was unanimously decided by the labour tribunal that the plaintiff had been subjected to bullying by a new training manager contrary to the law. To a great extent, the circumstances in the decided case relate to what is happening to Roz; who feels bullied by her manager Dennis. Similarly, Dennis directed Roz that he would be the one to deal with the men in the organization yet that is contrary to the law given that she was treated that way because of her sex. Section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 provides that, it is illegal to practice discrimination in an indirect manner that adduces some requirements to all but, covertly predispose certain category of people to prejudice or discrimination. Dennis pretends to appreciate Roz‘s role in management but stealthily directs her that all decisions lie with him. On the same note he gives directions that Roz should not deal with the men, as he would deal with them by himself. Legally speaking, Roz is entitled to claim constructive dismissal. This is relates to resigning from the work place, given the hard working relations at the work place, and seeking compensation from the firm(Softy Furnishing Ltd). This is in light of the fact that the employer has breached an implied term of the employment contract. This aspect was deliberated effectively in the case of BG plc v OBrien13. Making it hard to carry out normal operations through actions that discriminate is a ground for a constructive dismissal claim14. It is advisable that Roz informs the management of the firm of her grievances as stipulated in ACAS15. ACAS Rule 32 provides that in situations where it is not possible for the employee (aggrieved party) to solve the grievances in an informal manner, then, a written formal complaint should be launched to a manager who is not concerned in the matter. In this respect, Roz has the obligation of trying to solve the matter informally by telling Dennis her grievances over the statements made. If Dennis fails to heed and rectify, Roz should launch a formal written complaint to the management. Similarly, ACAS rule 4116 provides that when an employee feels that grievances have not been heard in a satisfactory manner, then they can launch an appeal to have the matter resolved in manner that is satisfactory. That avenue is available to Roz with regards to the matter. Roz could as well rely on provisions of ACAS Rule 42 that states that no undue delay should take place while resolving the issues. ACAS rule 43 17mandates the organization to deal with issue impartially and it should also be assigned to manager who has not had any prior relations with the case at hand. In the case Blackburn v Aldi Stores Ltd, 18it was held that failure by management to observe rule ACAS rule 43(offer impartial grievance process) is tantamount to breach of an implied employment contract. In particular, it is equivalent to beaching trust and confidence, term that are essentially for a good relationship between an employee and employer19. In a nut shell, Roz has a cause in action in relations to the statements made by Dennis. His utterances appear to undermine her jobs because they constitute bullying. On the same note, Dennis’ claim that Roz should not deal with the men is discrimination on the basis of sex; that is illegal20. She should seek constructive dismissal21. Employees under the law, as discussed, have a duty to ensure that employees are not discriminated against. Since it has been determined that that there was discrimination against employee (Roz) that amounts to breach of contract. Breach of an implied term of contract gives the other party a room to repudiate the contract. Seeking constructive dismissal is equivalent to repudiation of the contract. Bibliography UK Cases Blackburn v Aldi Stores Ltd British Aircraft Corporation v Austin [1978] IRLR 332, EAT Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler [1986] IRLR 69, CA Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Co [1957] 2 All ER 229, QBD Stone v. Lancaster Chamber of Commerce. Morrow v Safeway Stores plc [2002] IRLR 9 W A Goold (Pearmak) Ltd v McConnell [1995] IRLR 516, EAT UK legislations Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievances Procedures ( ACAS) 2012 Equality Act 2010 Secondary sources Battu H, McMaster R and White M, Tenure And Employment Contracts (2002) 29 Journal of Economic Studies Carby Hall J, A Voluntary Alternative Route For Unfair Dismissal Claims: Arbitration (2008) 43 Managerial Law Carby‐Hall J, The Function And Effect Of British Social Law In The Context Of The Employment‐Unemployment Debate (2006) 38 Managerial Law Corby, S, ‘Resolving employment disputes: Lessons from Great Britain’(2008) 23  Industrial Relations Desombre, T. & Benny, R, ‘The changing context of employment in the NHS: some legal implications of changes to employment contracts"(2008) 24 Health manpower management Dickens, L, "Individual statutory employment rights since 1997: Constrained expansion"(2002) 24, Employee Relations Dix, G. & Oxenbridge, S, "Coming to the table with Acas: from conflict to co-operation"(2004) 26 Employee Relations Gennard, J, "Employee relations public policy developments, 1997-2001: A break with the past?"(2002) 24 Employee Relations Gilbert, K, "Exploring equal value dispute procedures: power and conflict under Labour"(2004) 26 Employee Relations Goldman, L. & Lewis, J, "Settle out of court"(2011) 63 Occupational Health Goldman, L. & Lewis, J, "Employments golden age" (2005) 55 Occupational Health Gregory, D.L. & Harary, M, "A COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN THE UNITED STATES AND UNITED KINGDOM FROM 2006 THROUGH 2011"(2012) 86, St.Johns Law Review Illston, T, "The duty of good faith: How does it apply on the termination of a pension scheme?"(2003) 8 Pensions: An International Journal Lockwood, G, "A legal analysis of sexual harassment employment tribunal cases 1995-2005"(2008) 50 International Journal of Law and Management Murphy, J, "Alternative dispute resolution in the South African pension funds industry: An Ombudsman or a tribunal?" (2001) 7 Journal of Pensions Management Telling, D, "Collective agreements in the courts in the 1990s"(2002) 44 Managerial Law Tregaskis, O. & Brewster, C, "Converging or diverging? A comparative analysis of trends in contingent employment practice in Europe over a decade"(2006) 37 Journal of International Business Studies Newman, D, "Early conciliation: can it succeed where the dispute resolution procedures failed?"(2014) Employers Law Pollard, D.E, "The Mobile Executive: English Employment Law"(2012) 13 Business Law International Rosenthal, P., Lockwood, G. & Budjnaovcanin, A, "An overview of the UK Employment Appeal Tribunal decisions in sexual harassment cases 1995-2005", (2008) 27 Equal Opportunities International Rowbottom, D, "Rediscovering the collective application of the Equal Pay Act"(2007) 26, Equal Opportunities International Read More