EMPLOYING ILLEGAL WORKERS
6.1 Criminal liability. It is a criminal offence for an employer to employ a person who is not entitled to work in the UK. An employer found guilty of an offence is liable to a fine not exceeding level 5 (currently £5,000) for each illegal worker employed. An employer will have a statutory defence to any prosecution if it has checked the original and kept a copy of one or more of a number of specified documents verifying the individual’s right to work in the UK
(check the Work Permits (UK) website (see page 45) for a full list). If an employee provides a
UK or EEA/Swiss passport or national identity card, no other documents are required. If an employee does not provide this, an employer must ask for either:
(a) a document
…show more content…
Although it is not compulsory, it is advisable for an employer to ask potential employees to produce at least one of these documents prior to the start of their employment so that it can take advantage of the statutory defence. However, the defence will not be available if the employer has actual knowledge that it would be an offence to employ the individual.
6.2 Race Discrimination. An employer who carries out more rigorous checks on potential employees who look or sound foreign may be found liable for unlawful race discrimination.
Therefore, it is important that all applicants are treated in the same way and are asked to produce the same type of document verifying their right to work in the UK. The Governmenthas issued a Code of Practice containing guidance on the measures which employers are expected to take in order to comply with their obligations and to avoid unlawful race discrimination. The Code of Practice is available from the Immigration and Nationality
Directorate website (see page
…show more content…
(c) Benefits – in addition to basic salary, many employers offer additional benefits such as a pension scheme, a bonus or commission scheme, private health insurance, long term disability insurance, death in service insurance, a company car (or car allowance), gym membership and share options. Brief details of all of these would normally be included in the contract of employment with the exception of share options which are normally dealt with in a separate share option agreement.
(d) Confidentiality / IPR – if the employee is likely to have access to the employer’s confidential information, it is advisable for the employment contract to include specific provisions identifying the information and providing that the employee must not use it for personal gain or disclose it to any unauthorised person at any time during their employment or after its termination. Further, if the employee’s work is likely to give rise to intellectual property rights then the contract can include provisions requiring the employee to assign any rights to the employer. Alternatively, some employers require employees to enter into separate agreements dealing with
(5 points) Based on the facts of the case you have selected, is it possible the employer can also be held criminally liable? Explain your answer.
In reality, employees do have to pass on certain information which is why the Health and Social Care Information Centre published guidelines that staff can follow regarding confidentiality (The Open University, 2015, p. 59). There are five rules within these guidelines, firstly, it states that any information about a person is to be
...ion in court and must have data available to support their decision. Also throughout the record, the worker must document that the parents have been informed of their rights and give a direct statement of what was decided in court on if case was unfolded or justified. (Green 1)
The case Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd[1] confirms the long held doctrine that employers are vicariously liable for the negligence of their employees during the course of their employment. In comparison to cases such as Humberstone v Northern Timber Mills[2] and Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd[3], which appear to contribute to the development of the application of common law to evolving social conditions, the Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd case may be considered as taking a step back in affirming the traditional notion of ‘control’ when determining the nature of employment relationships. The following will critically analyse the ratio and the legal and commercial implications prevalent in this case.
..., (21 and over). The Employment Rights Act of 1996 has included benefits UK’s citizens with four weeks paid yearly leave, sick pay, maternity and father leave. All employees are legally entitled to 5.6 weeks paid holiday time per year. All employers are responsible of their employee’s health and safety care. Adults are limited to 48 hours per week of work. Direct/indirect discrimination or harassment is not tolerated as well as favoritism. Age, disability, sexual orientation, race, religion, etc. are all factors. The UK is in progress for a plan of terminations.
However, this definition covers privacy and protection from government. To work productively, especially when the work may be physical, it is nearly impossible to keep one’s privacy. The relationship between employer and employee is based on a contract. The employee provides work for the employer and in return he is paid. If the employee cannot provide services because of problems such as drug abuse, then he is violating the contract.
United States of America. National Employment Law Project. National Employment Law Project. N.p., Jan. 2011. Web. 18 May 2014.
IE’s must have employer’s liability insurance and are registered with HMRC. Individual employers should also offer the necessary training to do the duties required. Duties can include:
Completion of Employment System Review and ongoing exploration of additional barriers for specific designated groups
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm71/7170/7170.pdf accessed on 19/03/2012. Other
Also, the tort victim is usually sufficiently compensated through insurance rather than if they claimed against the employee as the master has the ‘deepest pocket’[2]. However, recent developments in the law on vicarious liability not only makes the employer liable for acts that are ‘directly’ connected with what they are employed to do, but it is now established that an employer may be liable for the unauthorised acts of an employee, where those acts are ‘closely connected’ with the nature of the wrongdoer’s employment. The principle of vicarious liability can also burden the operation of a business by placing a disproportionate amount of responsibility on an employer. More money needs to be spent on training, employee’s characteristics need to be assessed and higher costs will be passed on to the consumer.
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.
This therefore illustrates that there is an attempt to recognise the difficulties presented, in terms of being able to establish employment status but it is not able to reach the core element of the problems involved. Certainly there is no shortage of disagreement within the fact that, this is a significant step towards tackling the perceived abuse of such contracts by employers, particularly for low-paid workers. These new provisions have also included an extension of the ban to low-income contracts and a new route for workers to bring tribunal claims if they suffer a detriment due to taking jobs under other contracts . Zero hour contracts suits many individuals, who like the flexibility to work when appropriate for them.
In order for any organization to select the perfect applicant for a job position, the organization provides pre-employment testing/screening. Pre-employment testing is beneficial for the company because it can help the company to reduce cost, decrease turnover and save time. Pre-employment testing that is provided must be valid and fair. (Quast, 2011) In addition to the validity of pre-employment testing/screening an organization must never discriminate a person’s age, gender or disability status. Therefore, more organization are becoming more diverse when it comes to employee selections. However, some ethical issue may arise when an organization decides to change their organization into a more diverse organization.
In case one does not get hired and does not receive a good explanation to why they have not been employed, this case can be used as a precedent to receive and get benefits as an employee. This can be illustrated by the fact that, “Under the Prima Facie Case the plaintiff has met her initial burden to proof and will win unless the employer can present a legally accepted defense” (682). This proves that the person going to sue is likely to win the case, unless the applicant wanting to get hired is told by the employer a good reason of why they are not getting