Urgent UK Law: Employment Law Issues - Case Study Example

Urgent UK Law: Employment Law issues Your name Instructor Course name Date of submission Urgent UK Law: Employment Law issues The adjustments in framework of employment law continued at their normal pace at the dawn of 2004 in Britain. New measures on matters such as sexual harassment, disability discrimination, and unequal pay have been introduced. High numbers of significant cases regarding disability discrimination and employment matters have been decided by court of appeal. This has incorporated important rulings on employment issues, work place stress, unfair treatment of employees, unjust dismissal and the extent to which the offended are given justice. The house of Lords has made clear the employer’s duty to make rational adjustments under the laws of disability. Employment law in United Kingdom has given both the employees and employers the entitlements and rights in reference to how they are dismissed and disciplined, how their grievances are met, sickness and absence from work, and the right to demand for better working environment and retirement. All workers have a right not to be unfairly treated at work place in reference to gender or sex orientation and disabilities. Therefore, any employee who feels like they are being discriminated they have an obligation to take their employer to employment tribunal. Discrimination is a situation where one is treated unfairly at home, school, work place or even in a public gathering. This paper focuses on two different cases, which exhibits how deep discrimination has taken the British population hostage to an extent that human dignity is not valued at all. Basing from the judgments of the House of Lords, the United Kingdom has drafted laws that advises its citizens against any form of discrimination. There are various forms of discrimination in society. For instance, direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, discrimination at work place (employment), sex discrimination, race discrimination and disability discrimination. John Davies Vs. small Market Research Company case (Disability Discrimination) There are several orders contained in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Amendment) Regulations (United Kingdom) 2004. Some of the measures that help enforce the law include: Sections 21(2) (a), 21(2)(b) and 21(2)(c) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (the physical access duties). The Disability Discrimination (Providers of Services) (Adjustment of Premises) Regulations (United Kingdom) 2003. The Disability Discrimination (Employment Field) (Leasehold Premises) Regulations (United Kingdom) 2004. This case seeks to define the concept of disability discrimination in which it is defined as any condition, which, the sufferer john Davies is not currently affected by employer but is likely to recur. In this case using legal justice, there are some factors that an employer should consider before deciding whether the employee is serious affected by the recurring conditions and should be protected under the Act. According to the law of United Kingdom on disability, it is not limited to physical disablement of a person; rational changes are not restricted to physical matters such as movement. It is a completely round matter, which incorporates mental or cognitive state of someone. In this case, metal impairment need to be diagnosed in a health clinic and that it affects the daily activities of a person. Disability is not the same as sickness and the law on disability does not stretch to those who are sick (Barker 2011, p 46). The disability discrimination Act 1995 aims at protecting job applicants and workers or employees whose mental impairment has a significant and long-term effect on their capability to do day-to-day activities (Graham & et al 2005, p 59-68). John Davies could not concentrate because of the severity of migraine condition, which made him to stay out of work for a long time, or even in some situations, he could not attend to his customers because of headaches and dizziness. Mental impairment should be followed by diagnostic measures to authenticate it and avoid mild or moody feelings of some people who may be seeking statutory protection. The institution of employment should keenly analyze the results from the physicians to assess the complexity of the situations. John despite his skills and competency levels he could not ascend to higher position in the company because of his state. The company had no other reasons to justify why they decided not to promote John at any one point of his stay at work place. The court would have established that there was no principle of mutuality of obligation as provided for in the constitution (15 (1) (a), Equality Act 2010). In addition, the company became too arrogant in that they could no longer listen to him and help him address his problems. According to the Law of the United Kingdom, this was wrong since the company had to establish the root cause of his problem before making decisions on what to do with john. His company unfairly treated John. According to the disability discrimination Act 1995 code of practice, the court would try to consider if discrimination really occurred. The company had to make adjustment in respect of the employee’s absence but did not inform John Davies of alternative replacement. The company treated John in that manner because of the backlog of work that has been caused by his absence from work. The tribunal would investigate if the employer placed the employee at a substantial disadvantage to make any and that the employer was not willing to make any adjustments to address the substantial disadvantage before potential candidate faced probation. The company argued that john had not given them any suggestion on how they were to modify his position in the company because of his mental state. The code of practiced drafted under 1995 Act provides some guidelines on how the private and public sectors should operate to avoid discrimination at work place. for instance, drawing from a relevant case where matuszowicz was challenging the Kingston Upon Hull City Council when employers did not take into consideration rational change for the disabled employees (Matuszowicz v Kingston-Upon-Hull City Council {[2009] EWCA Civ 22}). The disciplinary measures taken by Market Research Company on John Davies was not in conjunction with laws governing code of practice. The code of practical guidance to employees, employers and their representatives on necessary requirement relating to disciplinary measures, what entails reasonable and rational behavior when dealing with grievances of persons and disciplinary matters and the right to be accompanied at disciplinary hearings. The code of practice gives statutory procedures and ways or standards of justifiable practice, which the court will take into account when dealing on how employers have handled a dismissal of an employee. These codes of practice warn against unfair dismissal. The tribunal still takes into account whether the employer behaved rationally in all the circumstances leading to dismissal of workers (Singh 1997, p 89-97). However, the ideas that an employee has followed all statutory grievance procedures will not that the employing agency or employer will make it at the court. Christine WallisVs Production Line Company (Sex discrimination) In United Kingdom, a number of statutes have been approved and a number of instructions made to tame various forms of discrimination in British society. The sex discrimination Act 1975 made it unlawful for any person or employer to discriminate against a female employee employed by the company or him at an establishment in United Kingdom by ignoring her or exposing her to any other unacceptable detriment. Discrimination field of employment applies to both trade and employers. drawing example from case two; Christine Wallis Vs Production Line company where she was sexually discriminated by her work mates because of her obese body and taunting names that her employees calls her as gay. The sexual employment equality was formulated in early 2005 in Britain. The legislation sought to bring sanity in employment sector by ensuring that the sexual orientation or discrimination has been established as a formal framework for eliminating employment discrimination and other form of sexual harassment at place of work. Sexual discrimination is referred to as a sexual orientation towards people of opposite and same sex. In this sense, the issue of direct discrimination finds its way since it is based on ground of sexual orientation. Her work mates treats her unfairly because she was obese. The company drafted its own policy that deals with work place harassment. But not everybody worker in the company have been trained on these rules and policies. The tribunal would accuse the company for ignoring to post these policies within its employees so that they are conversant on what actions might be taken by the company if found engaging in unfounded behaviors such as sexual discrimination. According to the tribunal decisions on Christine Wallis Vs. Production line company case there was an arguable case ready to be debated in British court on the measures in Articles 2(1) of equality of all people that there shall be no unfair treatment whatsoever on grounds of sex or on sexual orientation (Wooldridge 1991, p 77). The court found out that the company was liable for discrimination of Christine Wallis citing that the person was discriminated against on basis of sex to an extent that she was referred to as homosexual. Homosexuals are allowed to serve in companies but there rights should be respected. Therefore, she was treated mainly on ground of sexual orientation but not sex. Basing their evidence from the above facts, the tribunal would come up a final judgment about this case heavily quoting from Westlaw. Conclusion The importance of this case study is to understand that employers can longer have the courage to assume that a disabled person cannot perform his or her duties well and that there is no need to make rational adjustments. The employer will be required to consider if employees could be transferred to fill vacant positions, which they are capable of doing. This could include increasing the person’s salary and promoting him into such a position. Bibliography Barker, C 2011, Essentially Equality: International Legal Protection for Sexual Minorities, Createspace Press, London. Ellis, A & Riggle, E 1996. Sexual Identity on the Job: Issues and Services. Routledge, New York. Filipp, M & Castagnera, J 2009, Employment Law Answer Book, 7th edition, Aspen publishers, Manchester. Graham,K & et al. 2005, Disability in the Work Place: Small Employers Awareness and Response to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 & October 2004 duties, Corporate Document Service, London. Monaghan, K 2007, Equity Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Singh, R 1997, The Future of Human Rights in the United Kingdom: Essays on Law and Practice. Hart Publishing Inc, New Castle. Weyembergh, J 2006, The Gays, and Lesbians Rights in an enlarged European Society, Leads University Press, Leads. Wooldridge, F 1991, Company Law in the United Kingdom and the European Community: Its Harmonization and Unification. Athlone Press, London. Cases cited in the text: Christine WallisVs Production Line Company (Sex discrimination) Matuszowicz v Kingston-Upon-Hull City Council {[2009] EWCA Civ 22} John Davies Vs. small Market Research Company case (Disability Discrimination) Read More