Problems at Softy Furnishings LTD - Assignment Example

Running Header: Problems at Softy Furnishings LTD Problems at Softy Furnishings LTD Author’s Name Instructor’s Name Course Number Date of Submission 1. Advice to Fatama as to whether she is obliged to use the new equipment Fatama has worked in the company for three years as a machinist but has been doing her work at a less efficient speed owing to the equipment that she has been trained on and indeed the one she has been using in carrying on her duties. However, the introduction of a new very fast equipment is aimed at speeding production in line with the new manager’s aim of improving the company’s fortunes. Unfortunately Fatama does not want to use the machine since she does not know how to use it and although she has been offered training opportunity to help her use the new machine, she is does not want to. In other words, it can be argued that she is standing in between the company and its quest for improved efficiency and hence improved production. In my opinion, Fatama is obliged to use the new machine which will help her to work more efficiently in line with the company’s vision. Failure to use the machine may provide the company with grounds for fairly dismissing her on grounds of capability in line with s98 (2) of employment relations act (ERA). There is substantial reason for the company to demand that Fatama uses the new machine in line with s98 (1) (b) since this will enable the company improve its production (Legislation.gov.uk, 2004). Thus, Fatama ought to learn how to use the new machine on grounds of improving the company’s production efficiency in line with the decision in Treganowan v Knee (1975). Otherwise, the company is entitled to dismiss her fairly after following the laid down procedure. This is because by offering training for her, the company is trying to eliminate her redundancy or improving her capability to deal with the new change by being able to use the new machine. Because she is not willing to learn how to use the machine, she is giving the company a reason for reasonably dismissing her despite the employer having acted reasonably to avoid her dismissal. By offering the training opportunity, the employer is demonstrating that he has done as much as possible and has acted reasonably to avoid dismissal. With no alternative owing to Fatama’s lack of cooperation, the employer can dismiss and hire a person who will be able to use the machine since the company has to improve efficiency in line with its goals. It is for this reason that I would advise Fatama to go ahead and learn on how to use the new machine and hence be able to use it in a bid to avert the eminent dismissal in line with s98 (ERA) (Legislation.gov.uk, 2004). 2. The legal situation regarding Sidney and Sabrina Sidney is being denied an employment opportunity because of his criminal record on the grounds that he had been sentenced for drugs smuggling and served 4 years. On the other hand, the company is dismissing Sabrina for gross misconduct for failing to disclose her past imprisonment for possession of cannabis. In my opinion, the cases of Sidney and Sabrina are cases of unfair treatment by the company and hence they should seek legal redress. Alternatively, the company should consider its position on the matter. The rehabilitation of offenders act (1974) is against discrimination based on past criminal convictions after a rehabilitation period to ensure such individuals do not have a lifelong blot on their records owing to their past offences (Dworkin,1975). If the rehabilitation period has lapsed but there has not been further conviction, the conviction is spent and the conviction need not be disclosed by the ex-offender when applying for a job in this case. In addition, employees are given protection against dismissal or exclusion owing to spent conviction. It is thus illegal for an employer to prejudice a person in any way owing to a spent conviction. In both cases, the conviction is spent since 18 months have already lapsed after Sidney and Sabrina served their sentences. Actually, the only requires caution to be taken only if the employment involves working with children or vulnerable adults, health, pharmaceutical or legal industries, banking and financial roles and roles related to national security which is not the case in the case of Sidney and Sabrina. Thus, the company is discriminating against the two by dismissing Sabrina and failing to employ Sidney on the bases of past convictions since the law clearly states that an employer can not dismiss an employee solely on the basis of a spent conviction. This is based on the decision in Property guards Ltd v Taylor and Kershaw (1982). In addition, the law outlaws discrimination for failing to disclose spent convictions when seeking for employment while at the same time outlawing a person seeking employment from being discriminated on the bases of a spent conviction. Based on the above arguments, the grounds for which Sabrina is being dismissed and for which Sidney is being denied employment are not in line with s98 of the employment relations act and also contravene the rehabilitation of offenders act (1974). As such, the company should reconsider its decisions regarding the two. Otherwise, both Sidney and Sabrina ought to consider taking legal action against the company for discrimination on the basis of spent convictions so that they can be appropriately compensated for the unfair treatment by the company. 3. The prospects of any claim that may be brought under the Equality Act 2010 regarding Joseph and the two women whose applications for employment were turned down; Though Graham wants to make changes in the warehouse to create more diverse working force, the two well qualified women cannot be hired since senior management has advised Graham not to employ them on the basis that the firm would be better of continuing to employ men only in the warehouse so as not to upset the group’s Macho dynamics. In other words, the two women fail to get employment just because they are women. On the other hand, Joseph will also not get employed for the reason that he is a homosexual and this is likely to upset the group’s Macho dynamics. In other words, he fails to get employed for the fact that he is a Homosexual. If he was not, he would have been employed. In my opinion, both these acts are discriminatory and are in contravention to the Equality Act 2010. As such, any claim brought against the company for its actions against the three is likely to succeed. It is clear that the three persons are being discriminated against on the basis of protected characteristics identified in section 4 of the act. Section 11 is against discrimination of any person on the basis of sex while section 12 provides against any person on the basis of their sexual orientation (Legislation.gov.uk, 2010). According to the act, it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of marital status or sex in recruiting, promoting and training in the organization. This happens when an individual of one sex is treated less favorably on the grounds of sex as opposed to how a person of the opposite sex is treated if in the same situation (Legislation.gov.uk, 2010). In this case, the question one would ask is whether if men with the same qualification as the men would have applied for the same position, they would have been offered the employment. In this case, it is true that the men would have got the employment since they would not have interfered with the group’s Macho tactics. Thus, it is clear that the two women are denied employment chances in the warehouse not because they are not qualified as stated in the case but because they are women and hence do not fit in the group according to the management. For this reason, it becomes clear that the two women are being discriminated sexually for being women. Though the company may put defense that this is not discrimination since employing women would lead to reduced efficiency owing to interfering with the group’s Macho tactics, it is not clear whether this defense would succeed since it has been clearly stated that the women are well qualified and that the new manager’s intention is to improve diversity in the department meaning that the department usually discriminate against women for their being women. Thus, an action by the women against the company is likely to succeed in line with Michalak v The Mid Yorkshire Hospital NHS Trust (2011) and damages are likely to be awarded to the women. Based on equality act 2010, it is unlawful to discriminate against employees or job seekers on the basis of their sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is defined to include orientation towards the people of the same sex or lesbians and gay men, orientation towards people of the opposite sex or heterosexuals and orientation towards people of the same sex and opposite sex or bisexuals (Legislation.gov.uk, 2010). The law requires that everyone be treated equally regardless of their sexual orientation. The question to ask here is whether a heterosexual man of the same qualification as Joseph would have got the employment opportunity if they had applied together. From the case, it is clear that a heterosexual man would have got the job if he had applied since this would not have interfered with the group’s Macho tactics according to the management. Thus, it is clear that Joseph is being discriminated against since he is a homosexual and hence he cannot get the job. This is in line with the decision in Grant v South-West Trains Ltd (1998) that gave rise to the 2010 act’s provision against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Although the company might raise argument that this is not discrimination as it would have interfered with efficiency at the department, it is not clear that such argument would succeed as there is no evidence that Joseph would have interfered with the group’s working. Thus, any action that Joseph brings against the company is likely to succeed for Joseph to be awarded damages for the treatment by the company. References: Legislation.gov.uk, 2004, Employment relations act 2004, Retrieved on 9th April 2017, from; http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/24/contents swarb.co.uk, 2015, Treganowan v Robert Knee& Co Ltd: QBD 1975, Retrieved on 9th April, from; http://swarb.co.uk/treganowan-v-robert-knee-co-ltd-qbd-1975/ Dworkin,G1975, Rehabilitation of offenders Act 1974, The Modern Law Review, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 429-435. Property Guards Limited v Taylor & Kershaw [1982] IRLR 175 Legislation.gov.uk, 2010, Equality Act 2010, Retrieved on 9th April 2017, from; http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents Michalak v The Mid Yorkshire Hospital NHS Trust (2011) Grant v South-West Trains Ltd (1998) Read More