Failing to Control the Employees - Essay Example

Employment law for managers Case A contract is a legally binding agreement between two parties. In this context, Sam is an employee of Frills and Spill Lingerie Company. As such, the two signed a contract, which outlined the duties and responsibilities of both Sam and his employer. The two have legal obligations to meet their responsibilities as outlined in the agreement. Key among Sam’s responsibilities at the company is making decisions and supervising a team of twenty employees. The contract gives Sam authority over the twenty employees. He must therefore devise appropriate ways of managing the employees in order to ensure their productivity. However, this does not occur at the company since the employees consider Sam too young to manage them and therefore make it hard for Sam to operate (Emir & Selwyn, 2014). Failing to control the employees is not just a portrayal of Sam’s incompetence but also a breach of a contract he signed with the Frills and Spills Lingerie Company. Creation of a contract is always voluntary but binds both parties legally. Sam accepted the job after understanding the challenges he would meet. Furthermore, the position gives him authority over the employees. As such, he must control his team thus enhance the productivity of the company as he promised to by signing the contract. Among the implied terms of the contract that Sam beaches is his basic role at the company, which is to control the team of twenty employees thus ensuring the productivity of the company. Sam refuses to handle the employee despite the presence of appropriate ways of dealing with uncooperative employees. The twenty employees just as Sam are employees of the company. This gives the company direct authority over the employees. The company must therefore create a conducive environment for Sam to operate. Organizations have organizational cultures, which help harmonize the behavior of the employees. Through the organizational culture, an organization sets effective values to guide the behavior and interactions of the employees. Sam alone cannot create the culture. Such is a function of the company. By creating an effective organizational culture, the employer would create a favorable environment for Sam to carry out his duties. This implies that the employer is partially responsible for Sam’s predicament. Failing to instil discipline in the employees is a breach of the contract between the company and Sam since this results in a hostile environment, one in which Sam cannot operate thus meet his obligations. Key among the major defenses in a court case on a breach of contract is frustration. When the terms of a contract are frustrating to either party as was argued in Ghosh v Nokia Siemens Network UK Ltd, the courts can intervene by ordering for the revision of the terms of the contract. A revision of contract would help eliminate the frustrating features of the task thus creating an environment for the cordial and productive relationship between the two parties. This case presents a perfect example of frustrating terms of a contract. Sam possesses the technical knowhow among other professional qualifications to work as a supervisor at the company. However, the other employees of the company are not friendly towards him. They therefore frustrate his efforts at the company. Working in such an environment is difficult thus limiting Sam’s productivity. Sam refuses to undertake some of his basic responsibilities because of the hostility of the environment. The courts should therefore order for the revision of the terms of the contract by compelling the company to create a conducive environment for Sam to work. As explained earlier, the company has a basic responsibility to create a cohesive organizational structure, one that enhances the operations of Sam among other employees. If the company filed for a breach of contract, the company would have to prove the breach. Sam remained unproductive owing to his incompetence; he refuses to take control of the workforce owing to personal differences between him and the twenty employees. He fails to make even some of the most basic decisions owing to resistance he anticipates from the employees. He cannot discipline them even when they make mistakes. Sam refused to fire some of the employees owing to the fear he felt. Such are obvious portrayal of incompetence and breach of the contract. The company therefore has a case since it seeks to protect its interests. Sam applied for the job and assumed the position well aware of the roles and responsibilities the position required. By assuming the position, he became legally obliged to manage the team. His inability to do so was therefore a breach of the contract he signed at the time he assumed the position. His weaknesses caused the company immense financial losses since the employees limited their productivity. The most probable outcome of such a case is the dismissal of Sam. Such contracts have timeline and the company would not dismiss Sam before the expiry of his tenure as set in the contract. However, the court can mitigate thus terminate the contract owing to Sam’s unproductivity. Sam on the other hand can also sue the company for a breach of contract. The terms of a contract should always be acceptable to both parties. In cases where a party feels overwhelmed by a contract owing to unfair terms, such parties can always petition the other parties for a breach of the contract. Sam cannot work effectively owing to the unfriendliness of the working environment. The company has a basic obligation to create a conducive environment for all the employees (Reid & Visser, 2013). The company fails to create a friendly environment for Sam to work. Such is a fundamental concern since the terms of the contract overwhelm Sam thus making it difficult for him to work effectively. The company has an obligation to create the organizational culture of the employees thus enhance the operations of Sam among many other employees. The working environment is hostile thus making the terms of the contract equally hostile for Sam to work. The possible outcome of the case includes a revision of the terms. The court can compel the company to create a friendly working environment for Sam by instilling discipline in the employees and revising the powers of Sam. Case 2 The United Kingdom has numerous laws that ban any form of discrimination and assault. Brian and his friend Derek undergo a series of discriminations based on their ages and assault since most of such cases of discrimination are abusive. The employer on the other hand disregards the plight of the two employees and in fact takes part in assaulting them. Such is a substantial breach of the law and is therefore a criminal offense punishable by law. The numerous employment laws in the country protect the safety and fairness of the work environment. The law firm, which is the employer in this context, has a basic obligation to create a conducive environment for all its employees. Furthermore, the employer must enhance the safety and friendliness of the working environment by eradicating any form of harassment of the employees. Derek and his friend Brian have undergone ridicule based on their age. Most of the employees at the fir believe that Brian is too old to continue working at the company. The younger employees intimidate Brian. They also ridicule Derek for relating with Brian. This implies that the company has created a hostile environment for both Brian and Derek. Brian reports the matter to the employer who in turn failed to take any action to help protect the fundamental human rights of the employees. In fact, the employers foster the abuse by not only disregarding the case but also taking part in the abuse as was determined in Lawal v Birmingham & Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust. Such is a violation of the rights of the employees embedded at the top-level management (Freedland, 2006). As stated earlier, both discrimination and verbal assaults are criminal offenses in the country. The employees at the law firm coupled with their employer therefore commit a serious crime by constantly abusing and ridiculing Brian and his friend Derek. The liberties in the country as espoused in the bill of rights in the country protect the basic rights of citizens. Anyone can work in the country irrespective of his religion, age, race or any other factor of stratification that may arise in the country. Such is a basic provision that bans any form of discrimination. The employees at the law firm are discriminative. They discriminate against Brian because of his advanced age (Honeyball & Honeyball, 2014). They also discriminate against Derek for associating with Brian. The company is therefore a hostile working environment that disregards both the law and the basic liberties enjoyed by other citizens in the country. Among the basic legal rights that Brian and his friend Derek have is the right to employment. Any person in the country has the right to employment irrespective of his or her race, gender, religion or age among many others as was determined in Little v Richmond Pharmacology. While working at the law firms the employees breach on this right for both Brian and Derek. Discriminating the two based on their age seeks to send them out of their jobs. This contravenes their basic right. Additionally, the two have a legal right to live free and enjoy their lives without any form of assault. The constitution of the country coupled with numerous other supportive legislations ban any form of assault. Such laws seek to create a peaceful social setup for people to exist peacefully. However, the employees at the law firm contravene this basic right by abusing Brian and his friend Derek thus making it difficult for the two to work at the company. In case Derek and Brian decide to sue both their colleagues and employer, the two will enjoy success in the legal tussle owing to the overwhelming evidence of successive abuse by the employees at the company. Brian for example is a victim of successive abuse. The employees at the company treat him poorly and often mock him owing to his advanced age. When he reports the case to his employer, the employer claims he cannot do anything. Such a lack luster response comes from a man who should protect the basic rights of his employees. The case asserts that he has often made derogatory references to Brian’s speech. This makes him a culprit as well who instead of protecting his employees turns against them to foster the basic human rights violation. Brian is therefore a vulnerable victim at the company. The employees and the manager of the company are guilty aggressors who discriminate against the employee and even assault him verbally. Among the possible remedies to the case is financial compensation. The company created a harsh environment for Brian who lived a less satisfactory life owing to the ridicule from his colleague. The inability of the managers to reverse the situation was a portrayal of complacency coupled with a contribution to the ridicule. Such basic violations are punishable by law. The aggressors may therefore unspecified jail terms while proving adequate financial compensation to Brian for the damage he suffered at the hands of his aggressors. The company where the victim worked became a platform for his torment. As such, the company must provide Brian with adequate compensation for the inconveniences he went through while working at the company (Cabrelli, 2014). Brian worked in a demeaning working environment for ten years before he could report the matter to his manager. His manager on the other hand explains that it was too late for him to act. Such are acts of abuse that requires commensurate compensation for the numerous years Brian worked at the company. Derek on the other hand undergoes the same harsh treatment at the company. His predicament begins when he associates with Brian who everyone else considers too old to work at the company. The rest of the employees discriminate against him and often deny him fair opportunity. As stated earlier, discrimination is a criminal offense in the country often punishable by law. Derek must prove the crime. Fortunately, both the evidence and a witness are readily available. Derek undergoes intense discrimination from other employees who believe that he should not relate with the elderly Brian. Brian thus serves as his main witness who will help him prove the assault. As a victim of discrimination, Derek will benefit from commensurate compensation as well. Case 3 Under the agreement, Frills and Shrills lingerie Limited hired David as the new Chief Executive thereby transferring some trust to him. Under the agreement, David was deliver results to the directors’ satisfaction with a specific period. A breach of trust refers to a deliberate misappropriation of a resource or opportunity that one gains in confidence. Apparently, the directors of the company had confidence in David’s management strategies and therefore believed that he would enhance the company’s productivity within a short period. When David fails to deliver the profitability the director’ anticipated, they decide to dismiss him for breaching the trust. In doing this, they do not follow the prerequisite procedures in dismissing an individual the process frustrates David who feels that the company did not show him any respect despite the fact that they were contravening the terms of a contract. As discussed earlier, a contract has durations. When the directors decide to fire David before the end of his tenure, they ought to pay David his salary for the entire duration at dismissal. They contradict this provision by firing him unceremoniously and fail to provide him with any benefits claiming that David breached their trust. David just as any other employee has specific rights owing to his contributions and procedure of hiring. At the time of hiring for example, David proved his suitability to hold the position. He worked well and the management admits that he made effective day-to-day decisions, which is among the key responsibilities of a chief executive. At dismissal, the directors disregard such contributions claiming that David breached their trust. Such is a preposterous claim that destroys both the image and the confidence of the employee. Key among the rights that David enjoys is the right to a dignified dismissal, which must occur at the end of the duration specified in the contract. Additionally, David has an entitlement to pay for the contract as agreed at the time of his hiring. Wrongful dismissal coupled with slander are some of the charges that David may present in a court of law against the company that decides to dismiss him despite his productivity as stated in the contract. Contracts of employment often seek to regulate the relationship between an employee and the employee. While the terms of the contract vary depending on the job opening, most of the contracts have basic provisions that both parties must always safeguard. Key among the basic provisions is a minimum notice period. Dismissing an employee marks the termination of a contract. The employer often has the right to terminate the contract thereby dismissing the employee. However, doing this requires the employer to notify the employee in time in order for him to prepare psychologically thus have an alternative plan. Impromptu firing as is the case with David is a gross violation of the right irrespective of David’s unproductivity. As stated earlier, David has a right to a dignified dismissal that begins with the communication of the intention to fire him. The directors must make such communication in advance and do so in a respectful manner in order to safeguard the dignity of the employee. David’s resignation from the company is his attempt to save his dignity. The directors had begun making derogatory statements about him with most of them urging him to leave. The directors failed to make any constructive communication to the employee. Instead, they ridicule the employee often making him feel unappreciated. If David initiates a court case against his former employers, his main points or argument will include a beach of the contract and a harsh working environment all of which made it difficult for him to work at the company. As explained earlier, some of the directors made derogatory statements calling David unproductivity. They said that David had failed and it was therefore time to leave the company. Such are serious allegations the manager must prove. The key duties of a manager are to make decisions that influence the operations of the company and resolving daily operational challenges. The directors contend that David played this role effectively often making effective decisions. This portrayed David’s suitability to hold his position at the company and continue working since he was delivering his services as set in the contract of employment. The directors did not protect his employee thus committing a crime as was proved in Somerset County Council v Chambers. However, the directors become hostile and begin accusing David for negligence and incompetence. The environment at the company was becoming hostile for David since the directors continued to pressure him to deliver. They told him to either quit or deliver. This made the environment intimidating for David who was doing his best at ensuring the company remained productive. A hostile working environment is a fundamental argument in such a case since a party cannot always remain productive in an intimidating environment (Santamera v Express Cargo Forwarding). The contract laws consider the hostility of the terms of a contract. Laws consider the terms with the view to determining the effects they have on the productivity of a party in a contract. Additionally, an employer cannot argue that an action is gross enough to warrant the speedy dismissal of the employee without following the set procedures of dismissal. The company should have a procedure for dismissal that covers every unique case in a company (Lund v St Edmunds School, Canterbury). Furthermore, David’s case was not unique. The directors had always made derogatory statements pressurizing the employee to either deliver or quit. Such statements portray the managers’ anticipation of any outcome. The directors expressed their dissatisfactions but failed to act on it by issuing David with a notice of dismissal. The manager disregarded the basic constitutional provision and the rights of the employee as set in the employment laws in the country. The comments in deed breached the trust that David had placed on the directors thus affecting his confidence to continue working at the company. Among the likely outcomes of the case is financial compensation from Frills and Spills Lingerie Company as was determined in OBrien v The Ministry of Justice and Locke v Candy and Candy Ltd. David will prove that the wrongful dismissal caused him injuries. Firstly, he terminated his employment prematurely and will not therefore have any source of income. The court must cushion him from the shocks arising from the wrongful dismissal from his job. Additionally, the derogatory statements destroyed David’s confidence in himself and productivity. In Lund v St Edmunds School, Canterbury the court determined that discriminative comments are contraventions of the law and the same applies in this context. This portrays the effects of the comments, which caused him immense psychological torture. The most probable remedies to the injuries David suffer are commensurate compensation from the company that intimidated him thus making it difficult for him to remain productive. The case shows a perfect contravention of the terms of the contract by the company which decides to dismiss David without following the procedures of firing an employee especially after making derogatory statements that limited the productivity of the employee (OBrien v The Ministry of Justice). Bibliography CABRELLI, D. (2014). Employment law in context. Oxford: OUP. Emir, A., & Selwyn, N. M. (2014). Selwyns law of employment. London: OUP. Freedland, M. R. (2006). The personal employment contract. Oxford [u.a.: Oxford Univ. Press. Honeyball, S., & Honeyball, S. (2014). Honeyball & Bowers textbook on employment law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lewis, D. & Sargeant, M. (2013). Essentials of employment law. New York: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Reid, E., & Visser, D. P. (2013). Private law and human rights: Bringing rights home in Scotland and South Africa. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Cases Ghosh v Nokia Siemens Network UK Ltd [2013] UKEAT 0125_12_2506 - 25/06/13 Little v Richmond Pharmacology Ltd [2013] UKEAT 0490_12_2009 - 20/09/13 Locke v Candy and Candy Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 1350 - 29/10/10 AEI Cables Ltd v GMB & Ors [2013] UKEAT 0375_12_0504 - 05/04/13 Akwiwu & Anor v Onu [2013] UKEAT 0283_12_0105 - 01/05/13 Dooley v Union of Construction Allied Trades and Technicians (UCATT) [2013] UKEAT 0346_12_0305 - 03/05/13 Lawal v Birmingham & Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust [2013] UKEAT 0592_12_1104 - 11/04/13 Lund v St Edmunds School, Canterbury [2013] UKEAT 0514_12_0805 - 08/05/13 Monk v Cann Hall Primary School & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 826 - 10/07/13 North & Ors v Dumfries and Galloway Council [2013] UKSC 45 - 26/06/13 OBrien v The Ministry of Justice [2013] ET Santamera v Express Cargo Forwarding (t/a IEC Ltd) [2001] UKEAT 780_01_0111 - 01/11/01 Somerset County Council v Chambers [2013] UKEAT 0417_12_2504 - 25/04/13 Read More