Law and Employment Regulations - Assignment Example

Under the agreement between the employer and Beth certain issues could be raised such as the employment of Beth was based at-will of the employer since Beth was an independent contractor. As a result, the agreement between the two parties can be termed an Enterprise agreement. Sections 50 through 52 of the Fair Work Act guide the provision of this law (Prendergast, 2009). According to this document, a person should not contravene the terms of an enterprise agreement. As a result, we witness that Beth contravened the terms of the agreement without notifying her employer (Guerin, 2011).

            Since Beth was not a full-time employee she is regarded as an enterprise employee and therefore she has bound to the decisions and undertaking of her employer. Moreover, since the agreement she had with the company was an ‘at-will’ employment this meant that her employer had all the rights regarding her hiring and termination (Holland, 2007). While her rights, in this case, include fair treatment concerning dismissal, the right to take her employer to court in case of legal breaches, and the right to compensation or remuneration as any other employee. Given the fact of the situation, Beth could sue the company for unfair termination from work citing lack of notice. However, according to section 123 of the FWA, employees who are casual or contractual based do not need to be given notice of termination if employee termination is to occur (Grant, 2001). Moreover, within the law, Beth was not unfairly terminated since she was not able to meet the terms of the agreement/contract set out between her employer and herself. As a result, her employer in this case lost a job that was important to the firm yet Beth did not inform the firm why she was unable to undertake her duties.

Question 2

            The major and significant law that protects the job of employees and employers is the Fair Work Act of 2009. This law contains a lot of provisions on the terms of employment for workers and employers. For instance, this law allows for the creation of Enterprise agreements that protect to the great extent employees. Sections 72, 219, 111, and 129 establish and protect the rights and obligations of the employer and employee. For instance, section 219 explains how an enterprise agreement can be terminated by both the employer and the employee. The FWA agreement explains in section 123, that employees who are casuals are not protected from dismissal and they cannot their salaries in lieu compared to permanent or long-term employees (Prendergast, 2009). In the above scenario, we witness that the agreement that was made between Betty and the security company was based on terms that could be seen as enterprise agreements. As a result, it would be prudent to establish that Betty should have given a notice of her termination as is required by law (Guerin, 2011).

Moreover, the law protects employees from unfair termination from work based on different circumstances. Betty missed an important duty for her employer not out of choice or will since she was involved in an accident. As a result, she could plead that she was in no condition to undertake any duties and she would have lost the contract even if she had contacted her employer (Holland, 2007). Therefore she could sue the security firm based on the above legal issues and circumstances. This was evident in the case of Legione v. Hateley (1997) whereby an employer was forced to reinstate an employee who was terminated wrongfully from the job. However, the security firm could argue that Betty’s lack of undertaking her duties amounted to a breach of contract and the company suffered a lot of losses due to her inactivity (Guerin, 2011). As a result, the company had all the rights to terminate her employment and furthermore, the company did not press for compensation for damages due to lost business. Making use of these provisions and laws as witnessed in the case of Watson v. Milan Sundries [1993], the security firm could say that the termination of Betty was done within the law. Furthermore, their actions were protected and anchored in the Fair Work Act of 2009.