Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Equality in the workplace in America
Employer's liability tort law
The fight for women's equality in the workplace
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Equality in the workplace in America
Employment Law
Introduction;
"To what extent does the obligation to maintain mutual trust and
confidence ensure fair dealing between the employer and employee in
respect of disciplinary proceedings, suspension of an employee and
dismissal?"
Mutual trust and confidence:-
There are certain duties that an employer has to apply to its
employee. This is to obtain a mutual obligation of trust and
confidence between each other. A duty of cooperation is owed, if the
employer doesn't show a duty of cooperation to the employee, this then
can lead the employee to terminate the contract, sue or affirm the
breech and continue.
In the employment contract of the employee a duty of mutual trust and
confidence will show a positive impact on the employer when warning
the employee who is exercise the important rights in terms of the
employment contract. However the duty of mutual trust and confidence
can benefit to alert the employee of making a financial mistake. This
will destroy the relationship between the two. (University of
Nottingham v (1) Eyett (2) The Pensions Ombudsman [1999] IRLR 87).
A local authority councillor had commented to a council employee that
verbal abuse and accusations of dishonesty, during duties were carried
out on the council premises that breach of the duty of mutual trust
and confidence should be taken into account and gave the rights to an
employee to resign from the organisation and claim against
constructive dismissal. The employer should have the duty of providing
a safe and friendly working environment which made life easier for all
employees's to tolerate the conduct. (Moores v Bude-Stratton Tow...
... middle of paper ...
...equal opportunity can be
raised; the employer should take this into account. The business
should clearly state that its clear to third parties, that grievance
is considered a serious matter and action will be taken as a business
has the right to protect its employees to maintain a mutual trust and
confidence.
In an incidence, if a employee is dismissed, lead to disciplinary
hearing or their is a right to claim against unfair dismissal at the
employment tribunal. The employers need to make sure they have
followed the statutory procedures if they are dismissing a worker.
Bibliography
Websites:-
www.emplaw.co.uk
www.acas.org.uk
www.employmentappeals.gov.uk
www.blackstonechambers.com/pdfiles
www.canter-law.co.uk
www.msnsearch.com
www.google.com
Lecture notes were also used.
A rehabilitation clinic dismissed two drug rehabilitation counselors for using peyote in a religious ceremony. The two counselors, including Smith, sought unemployment benefits. Possessing peyote is a criminal offense in the State of Oregon. The rehabilitation clinic denied the counselors unemployment on grounds of misconduct. Smith filed suit again the clinic. The Oregon Supreme Court overruled the rehabilitation clinic’s verdict. The court stated that Smith’s religious use of peyote was protected under the First Amendment's freedom of religion. The Employment Division, Department of Resources appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court on the grounds that possession and use of peyote is a crime. The Supreme Court returned the case back to Oregon State Courts to determine if Oregon law prohibits the use and possession of peyote for religious purposes. Oregon State court ruled that consumption of illegal drugs for religious purposes was still considered illegal; however, they were also aware that this ruling also violated the First Amendment. The main issue is whether the government can prevent the religious use of peyote under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, even if a law prohibits it for everyone else. In addition, can the state deny unemployment benefits to someone who has been fired for using peyote for religious purposes?
There was evidence shown that the unfair dismissal requirements were the furthermost conflicting and inconsistent from the manager’s perspective. The Fair Work Act applied unfair dismissal requirements for entirely workers, regardless of the population of workers in the business (Chapman, 2015). The Fair Work Act presents two cases that dismissal could be reasonable, including other dismissal and summary dismissal. In the first case, the law offers a sequence of stages such as concluded checklist, copies of notice, declaration of dismissal and a witness announcement with signature that managers must follow with the intention to reduce the problem (Chapman, 2015). In the second case, managers may dismiss a worker without notice due to theft or fraud. As the consequence, the amount of cases in relation to unfair dismissal has risen significantly since the Fair Work Act implemented as law. In addition to the growing records of cases in relation to unfair dismissal, the judgements from Fair Work Australia showed some contradicting clarifications of the Fair Work Act (Chapman, 2015). According to an example, a business in Albury- Wodonga had dismissed an employee due to the breach of occupational and safety laws after an employee continually denied to wear safety glasses at work (Sloan, 2011). However, after checking the worker’s reinstatement, the Fair Work Australia stated that the worker had a family and he has found it challenging to
In this paper, I will cover the employment-at-will doctrine, cover three scenarios with actions that the Chief Operating Officer (COO) can take to resolve the problems in the scenarios. Also, cover my state’s employment -at-will doctrine and provide an example of a recent situation that has happened in the last five years.
The purpose of this paper is to analyze a specific, hypothetical employment situation encountered and to include the information regarding employment conflicts, questions, grievances, lawsuits, etc., in terms of how the situation was handled or resolved. Employment conflicts are a constant issue everyday in any organization; it is how you handle them both legally and professionally that counts.
The Fair Labor Standards Act The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) was passed by Congress on June 25th, 1938. The main objective of the act was to eliminate “labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standards of living necessary for health, efficiency and well-being of workers,”[1] who engaged directly or indirectly in interstate commerce, including those involved in production of goods bound for such commerce. A major provision of the act established a maximum work week and minimum wage. Initially, the minimum wage was $0.25 per hour, along with a maximum workweek of 44 hours for the first year, 42 for the second year and 40 thereafter. Minimum wages of $0.25 per hour were established for the first year, $0.30 for the second year, and $0.40 over a period of the next six years.
“The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) was created in 1938 to establish a minimum wage and a limit on the number of hours which may be worked in a standard work week. It also provides standards for equal pay, overtime pay, record keeping, and child labor.” This law was created during a time period of great financial and political turmoil.
Ian Smith and Aaron Bake, Smith and Wood’s Employment Law (10th edn Oxford University Press, Oxford 2010) 80
In dealing with a person’s livelihood, and often, sense of self, it is of no surprise that ethical issues regarding employment practices are of great concern. The issues of employment at will and due process contracts in the workplace are among the most widely contentious in the realm of employment. Employment at will is the doctrine that employment may be ended, by either party, for good, bad or no cause at all.1 Due process, on the other hand, is the employment practice in which a person may appeal a decision as a means of receiving an explanation and the opportunity to argue against it.2 Employment at will is the standard in the majority of private corporations today and is argued for relentlessly by freedom of contract enthusiasts, however, it is becoming ever more apparent that employment at will contracts reflect the old corporate maxim where the single bottom line, profit, is accented and the well being of other stakeholders, in this case the employee, are of little or no influence. Due process should be accepted as the prevalent employment system as it shelters employees from the hostile actions of the more powerful employer, provides a stable, bilateral contract between both parties and portrays the growing ethical concerns of society.
There are different types of discrimination against a job applicant or an employee. It is prohibited by law to make biased decisions based on preconception to group of people according to a certain race, national origin, class, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, age, disabilities, genetic information etc. All developed countries have an advanced legislation to protect job applicants and employees against different types of discrimination in many types of work situations such as hiring, firing, promotions, harassment, training, wages and benefits. This paper examines issues associated with the main forms of discrimination.
Employment Discrimination laws seek to prevent discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, physical disability, and age by employers. A growing body of law also seeks to prevent employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. Discriminatory practices include bias in hiring, promotion, job assignment, termination, compensation, retaliation, and various types of harassment. The main body of employment discrimination laws consists of federal and state statutes. The United States Constitution and some state constitutions provide additional protection when the employer is a governmental body or the government has taken significant steps to foster the discriminatory practice of the employer.
As a consequence of the separate legal entity and limited liability doctrines within the UK’s unitary based system, company law had to develop responses to the ‘agency costs’ that arose. The central response is directors’ duties; these are owed by the directors to the company and operate as a counterbalance to the vast scope of powers given to the board. The benefit of the unitary board system is reflected in the efficiency gains it brings, however the disadvantage is clear, the directors may act to further their own interests to the detriment of the company. It is evident within executive remuneration that directors are placed in a stark conflict of interest position in that they may disproportionately reward themselves. The counterbalance to this concern is S175 Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) this acts to prevent certain conflicts arising and punishes directors who find themselves in this position. Furthermore, there are specific provisions within the CA 2006 that empower third parties such as shareholders to influence directors’ remuneration.
An employer may dismiss an employee for a fair reason - this means the dismissal is substantively fair and if the employer has followed a fair procedure - the dismissal is procedurally fair.
Part 2 of Employer Duties and Rights- management rights, subcontracting, just-cause discipline and discharge, and safety standards.
In conclusion, there are many rights to the employees’ when it comes down to equal opportunity employment. In this paper you learned of a few different types of discrimination towards employees’ and how different acts protect them in the workforce. It also has shown what rights a person has as an employee in the working environment.
When considering good industrial relations it is important to note both perspectives of the relationship want different outcomes. Workers want good conditions and a wage which adequately reflects their efforts and ability. Employees also want a voice in the organisation and want to be able to play a role in making decisions particularly those that have a direct impact on their ongoing employment (company takeovers eg Qantas or outsourcing arrangements). On the other hand employers want the workers to be productive and efficient for the least amount of financial sacrifice (Trish Todd. 2006). A common element that both parties want is control and power. I believe appropriate industrial relations laws should offer equality and fairness to both the worker and the employer. These laws should protect workers by giving them adequate wages and conditions.