The Issues of Employment Law - Case Study Example

Case 2 Six months back Susan had entered into a contract for employment with Leisurama Co. Ltd. as Head of its Marketing Department. In the last four months, she is being consistently criticised by the centre manager publicly who finally demotes her to Assistant head of the department, without decreasing her salary. As a result, Susan resigns with immediate effect. The CEO of the company, Michael is therefore advised on the legal stance of Susan vis-à-vis the company, in case of any legal dispute. In case of any legal dispute with the said employee, the company has weak legal standing so far as the legalities are concerned. The voluntary resignation of Susan may have grave repercussions for the company as the said employee has several valid reasons to file claim in employment tribunal under more than one clause. Since the company has written agreement with the employee for not necessarily following the company’s grievance procedures, she can directly make her appeal to the employment tribunal. Susan, the said employee is a bonafide employee, employed under the contract of employment as head of the marketing department. She had resigned from her post when she was demoted to the post of assistant head of the marketing department. She was left with no option but to resign under the circumstances. She has legal right to claim her resignation under the following clauses of ‘constructive dismissal’ under ERA 1996 s.95(1)(c) that say an employee who resigns "in circumstances such that he is entitled to terminate [his contract] without notice by reason of the employers conduct" (internet). Another useful summary of the position was provided by the EAT in a 2003 case in which the judge said that "In relation to constructive dismissal, in broad terms, there have to be four elements. There has to be a breach of contract by the employer which can be either an actual breach or an anticipatory breach, and the breach must be sufficiently important to justify the employee resigning; or it can be one of the last of a series of incidents which justifies leaving. The two other conditions normally are that the employee must leave in response to the breach and not for some other unconnected reason, and, finally, the employee must not take too long about it" (France v Westminster City Council, EAT on 9th May 2003) (breach of contract, internet). Susan was not given any prior notice and her demotion to the post of assistant head of marketing clearly violated her terms and conditions of her contract of employment thus compounding her claim of constructive dismissal with breach of contract that specifically states that one cannot be change the terms of the contract that includes the designation, without giving appropriate notice and reasons to the employee. The employer must ensure that the employee is given a chance to defend herself or himself. No such notice was given to the employee in this case and neither was she given any chance to defend herself. Arden v Bradley (1994) IRLR 490 clearly collaborates with Susan’s case that they must not attempt unilaterally to reduce an employees status or pay (Arden, internet). Susan has a strong case of ‘bullying or breach of confidence’ because from the time, new manager Pauline took over (four months back), Pauline has been consistently criticizing Susan publicly and in front of her juniors which may have resulted in her loss of self confidence, respect and leading to stress. In Morrow v Safeway Stores plc [2002] IRLR 9, the Employment Tribunal said it thought that the public criticism by the store manager was a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. Susan though, strongly qualifying under the clause but cannot claim compensation because of her short period of employment which is just 6 months. Then again, if Susan decides to claim financial compensation against the psychological and stress related ailments after her resignation, her claims can be dismissed as per the judgment in the case of Johnson Unisys Ltd. where the lordships held that employee could not use breach of implied terms of trust and confidence to claim damages for psychological injury if the damage arose because of the manner of dismissal (injury, internet). It therefore, can be said that Susan has strong case under ‘constructive dismissal’ and stands to gain substantial financial remuneration as compensation Case 3 Kate has been in employment with the company as Office manager in Barchester for the last five and a half years. Kate is given a written notice for dismissal under the reason of redundancy. But at the same time, she’s offered a post of Senior Administrator, at the company’s headquarter based in London with the same pay scale and a relocation package. She rejects the offer citing children’s welfare as her main reason for refusal. Michael is duly advised and given legal status regarding the dismissal of Kate under redundancy and her financial entitlements as per statutory redundancy payments. Michael must be made aware of the clauses of redundancy under which the employees can be made redundant or dismissed. The main reasons being; new technology or a new system has made your job unnecessary, the job you were hired for no longer exists, the need to cut costs means staff numbers must be reduced or the business is closing down or moving (Redundancy, internet). None of the above reasons hold good for the company as it looks to be in sound financial state and is neither planning to introduce any new technology. There has also been no plan to dismiss more employees as cost cutting measures. The Redundancy clause therefore, cannot be applied for a Kate and the reasons cited by the administration clearly violate redundancy clause. Secondly, since the dismissal of Kate under redundancy clause is null and void, it can be legally construed as unfair dismissal with the malafide intention of upsetting Kate and against which she has genuine case for filing a claim in employment tribunal. She qualifies for this claim as she has been in service for more than five years. Thirdly, the alternative job offer to Kate based in London must have her consent and approval as she is a single parent with two teenaged children. She is perfectly entitled to refuse the said offer under family commitment as the children are well adjusted in their school and children’s grandparents not only provide moral and emotional support but the children are close to them and spend a lot of time with them. They feel secure with them while their mother is out working. Kate is therefore entitled to compensation. In the case that she wins her claim, the tribunal can order the employer to pay compensation, which is unlimited for discrimination or dismissal on health and safety grounds. For unfair dismissal claims the award is made up of: the basic award (calculated based on your on age and length of service), and a compensatory award, which has a maximum limit of £58,400. For wrongful dismissal or other breaches of contract, up to £25,000 can be awarded. Compensation is intended to replace lost earnings - theres no payment for hurt feelings (apart from in discrimination cases). You have to try to reduce your loss (for example, by getting another job or claiming benefit). The tribunal can order your employer to give you your job back if you win a dismissal case, if you want it. (wrongful dismissal, internet). Case 4 Janet is physiotherapist at the leisure centre and wants to move over to a half time contract and her request for the same is refused by the centre manager Pauline on the ground that her it is not appropriate for professional staff to work part time and the customers may get upset if they are not able to consult same professional, when required. Janet writes to Michael asking for a formal grievance hearing under company’s grievance procedures, stating that she is a victim of sex discrimination and will have to resign and bring tribunal claim if she is not allowed to opt for half time employment. Michael has been given the following advice regarding the legal status of Janet and whether her request for flexible timing has substantial support for him to accede to her demand. As per the legal clause for an employee to request for flexible work arrangement, the employee must qualify under the following conditions; - The employee must have worked for 26 weeks - are responsible for a child as a parent/guardiand/ special guardian/ foster parent/ private foster carer or as a holder of a residence order - are the spouse, partner or civil partner of one of these - are applying to care for a child - or are a carer who cares or expects to be caring, for a spuse, a partner, a civil partner, a relative or who lives at the same address as the person being cared for. So far as Janet is concerned, none of the above reasons apply to her to apply for the changeover to the part time work arrangement. Another very pertinent point is that her professional services are required by the company for its customers and therefore refusal to her request is not only correct legally but ethically also because Janet works in a services based industry which is dependent on client satisfaction. - Janet had been employed as a full time physiotherapist and there has been no medical or family compulsion on the part of Janet to opt for part time. Another reason that Michael has strong legal position is that Janet has threatened to use the clause of being a victim of sex discrimination if her demand for part time work is not accepted and she would then be claiming the same from the tribunal. If she takes her case to the tribunal as threatened, the company is inclined to win the case as her claim or threat of sex discrimination is not only a blatant lie but her claim is libellous and may prove counter productive for her in any legal dispute with the company. It therefore can be stated that in case of her resignation without any notice as per the term and conditions of her employment contract, she is liable to forfeit any claim whatsoever. It can therefore be stated that in case of any legal dispute, Janet would not only lose her present job but her professional integrity and credibility. The company stands on strong legal position. Reference Law of Constructive dismissal. Available from: [Accessed 10 January, 2008]. Breach of contract. Available from: [Accessed 10 January, 2008]. Arden v Bradley. Available from: < http://employment-law-expert.co.uk/ucd2.htm> [Accessed 10 January, 2008]. Psychological injury. Available from: < http://www.webnotes.co.uk/articles/Compensation.pdf> [Accessed 10 January, 2008]. Redundancy. Available from: [Accessed 10 January, 2008]. Wrongful Dismissal. Available from: [Accessed 10 January, 2008]. Flexible Work Arrangement. Available from: [Accessed 10 January, 2008]. Read More