Employment Law For Business
Question Number One
Critically Assess Whether Employment Law Maintains A Fair Balance Between The Rights Of Workers And Employers In The Uk.
According to the law of employment in the country of the United Kingdom, it is considered that both the employers as well as employees have responsibilities towards each other. The law says that both the employers as well as the employees must expect that their rights are going to be upheld (Cook 2021). These rights, as well as responsibilities, are related to various areas such as health and safety, as well as equal opportunities, and also the provisions of various terms and conditions of the contract of employment (Cook 2021). It would also include the right of getting minimum wages. The activities related to health and safety at work are responsible for setting out the rights as well as the responsibilities for both the employees as well as the employers. Furthermore, the research has prospected that could provide a thorough analysis of the changes or the modifications which are undergoing in the framework of the law related with the employment in the country of United Kingdom (Barber 2019).
The employees are expected that they would be carrying out their part of the work in such a manner, which confirms the safety of the others. Some employers have also been expected so that is abiding by the range of the requirements which would govern various aspects like providing safety equipment and other pieces of machinery (Barber 2019). It also includes carrying regular checkups of health and safety. It will ensure the employees and training regarding issues of health and safety of the employees. There is also an inclusion of carrying the assessment of risk for assessing the dangers which could occur in a particular activity of the work. There are some specified regulations about the manner that would help store the harmful substances. There are various requirements which are about the temperature at the workplace and various other aspects of the conditions at the workplace (Barber 2019).
Concerning the case law, Higgs v Farmor's School, it was held that an employee must not be discriminated against on various grounds like on grounds of religion or any kind of philosophical belief.
The employees are also expected that they would receive the specified rules and conditions at their workplace, which is to be followed when the work starts; it also would specify their rights and duties, their accountability, payments, as well as other entitlements (Minocha et al., 2017). The legislation regarding equal opportunities is also set that tells that all the employees must receive the same amount of the payment for carrying the similar type of work. There are also various laws regarding gender or sexual discrimination, or racial discrimination as well as disability discrimination (Morrison 2019).
Both the employers as well as the employees are expected to meet the minimum legal requirements, or minimum as well as maximum working hours, suitable working conditions as well. in simple words, it should be taken into consideration that what are the rights of the employees are the responsibilities of the employers and the responsibilities of the employees should be the rights of an employer (Morrison 2019).
Question Number Two
Legal liability of super households’ products limited, which might be incurred by the dismissal of their employee Mahmud Begum. And also their response in conciliations meeting arranged by ACAS (Dupont et al., 2018).
The rule of law-
As it is the digital era that is going on, and therefore, there is a scope that an employer could be brought for disrepute through bad posts as well as bad comments (Dupont et al., 2018). Several employers forbid the use of social media like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc., by their employees (Bengtsson 2020). The comments which are posted on a social media platform by the employee must not bring the company into any kind of disrepute, and if they involve any single element of the discrimination, then the dismissal is just and fair. The employers of the organization must be aware of the seriousness as well as enhanced sensitivity. They should be trained regarding the policies of social media, and equality and diversity must be provided to the employees (Bengtsson 2020).
Analysis of the case-
With reference to the case-law of Preece v JD Wetherspoon Plc (2010), Miss Preece was a manager at the organization Wetherspoons pub and have been abused at the workplace by two customers, and being at work, she posted some disrepute comments about the customers on a social media platform that is Facebook, and she also has got some abusive telephonic calls from one of the daughters of the customers (Aylott 2018). The daughter of the customers has also seen those comments of Miss Preece, and she had complained about the same to the Wetherspoon Plc. Eventually, she got dismissed, which was followed by disciplinary proceedings. She was dismissed on the basis that her actions have acted in decreasing the reputation of the organization (Aylott 2018). it was also revealed that she has also caused a breach of her duty regarding confidence and trust, and also the breaching of the policy of an internet. The tribunal of the employment law has also observed that the decision of dismissing her is categorized under the reasonable responses, and therefore, it was further held that the dismissal of Miss Peerce was justified as well as fair. With reference to another case law, Benning v British Airways (2010), the plaintiff had posted some derogation-like comments on the social media platform that is YouTube about a colleague of British Airways (BA). Here the tribunal has also found that the decision of British Airways regarding his dismissal was fair and justified (Teague et al., 2018).
As in the following case study, Mahmud Begum has posted some derogatory comments, and concerning the above case study, it is observed that it was justified and fair to dismiss her from the organization based on disrupting the company as well as misusing the internet and also about making offensive comments on the social media platform (Teague et al., 2018).
Question Number Three
Critically Assess Whether The Law Does Strike The 'Right Balance Between The Rights Of Employers And Those Of Employees About Employees Who Are Claiming That They Have Suffered Occupational Stress.
There are a vast number of laws or statutes which have the role of governing issues like health, safety which are governed under this legislation, and this is also known as common law. All the employers of an organization carry a duty of imposing on them, which must protect their employees (Ioannou et al., 2021). Some implied terms are imposed on all the contracts of employment that require that all the employers must take care of the employees as well as their health and safety issues. The safety of the employees is the obligation of the employers, which has been developed in both the laws that are in common law and statutory law. There are three major areas where the liability of the employer might take place when harm is done to the employees (Ioannou et al., 2021). The first one is a vicarious liability which arises when one employee is injured with another, and the law states that it is the responsibility of the employer to take due care. The second one is the statutory duty of protecting the safety of employees according to the health and safety at work act, 1974.
The third one is the personal duty of the employers that they could take reasonable care of their employees’ safety at the workplace. When the common law is taken into consideration, the duty of the care of an employee is treated as implied terms and the conditions of a contract (Gardiner et al., 2017). It is the implied duty of the employer that reasonable care must be taken for the safety of the employees of the organization, and this is very much similar to the duty of care of negligence. When it is evolved around the civil courts, the employer must take reasonable care of each of the employees. With reference to the case law, Wilson & Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English  AC 57, it was held by lord Wright that the plaintiff was injured at the coal mine of the defendant, at the time of travelling through the pit, at the end of the day shift as he was crushed when the haulage plant was established in the motion. Here the fault was that the equipment must have stopped at the time of travelling, and as it was argued by the employers that they have provided a safe system and safe environment at the workplace and have discharged their duty, but finally the employers were held liable (Gardiner et al., 2017).
Aylott, E., 2018. Employment Law: A Practical Introduction. Kogan Page Publishers.
Barber, P., 2019. The Law on the Employment of Teachers in Voluntary Schools and Academics. Law & Just.-Christian L. Rev., 182, p.49.
Bengtsson, L., 2020. Addressing age stereotyping against older workers in employment: The CJEU and UK approach. International Journal of Law and Management.
Cook, T., 2021. The interface between employment law and enforcement, remedies, and sanctions. In Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Employment Law. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Dupont, P.L., Kirk, E., McDermont, M. and Anderson, B., 2018. Promoting access to injustice? Alternative dispute resolution and employment relations in the UK.
Gardiner, R. and Hajek, P., 2017, October. Impact of GDP, capital and employment on the waste generation-The case of France, Germany, and UK regions. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on E-business, Management and Economics (pp. 94-97).
Ioannou, G. and Dukes, R., 2021. Does anything go? Exploring the limits of employment law in UK hospitality and catering. Industrial Relations Journal.
Minocha, S., Hristov, D. and Reynolds, M., 2017. From graduate employability to employment: policy and practice in UK higher education. International Journal of Training and Development, 21(3), pp.235-248.
Morrison, K., 2019. HR Theory and Employment Law. In Management for Scientists. Emerald Publishing Limited.
Teague, P. and Donaghey, J., 2018. Brexit: EU social policy and the UK employment model. Industrial Relations Journal, 49(5-6), pp.512-533.