Statutory restrictions applied to redundancy as in certain situations an employer may be breaching a statute by preserving an employee’s service. An example of this is reflected in the case of Appleyard v Smith (Hull) Ltd (1972). In this case there was a dismissal of an employee due to the fact the employee lost their driving licence. In this case it was held that the dismissal was fair. It was held fair due to that it was considered relevant for the employer to dismiss his employee as the job title required all employees to hold a valid driving licence. The case which however contrasts with the case of Appleyard v Smith (Hull) Ltd (1972) is the case of Mathieson v WJ Noble & Son Ltd (1972). In this case a travelling salesman was dismissed …show more content…
There are many reasons for an employer doing so, changes include, changing what the job title, changing what the job title requires, providing the skills for a job in a different way or changing the location of a business or closing down of a business. For a redundancy to be genuine an employer must demonstrate and provide reasons that the employee’s job will no longer exist. Many of the reasons that an individual is made redundant usually do not reflect on the ability of the employee. It is vital that an employer ensures that they are as fair as possible when dealing this a situation regarding redundancy. If an employer fails to consult with their employers in an acceptable manner it may lead to an unfair dismissal. Statutory restriction relating to redundancy would basically mean the limits and controls that have been in place on activities by its ruling legislation examples being The Employment Rights Act 1996, The Equality Act 2010 and Unfair Dismissal Act 1977. An employer is required to carefully consider the extent to which the statutory provision is capable of affecting the duties of an employee. Where statutory restrictions relate in situations of redundancy is that an employer could dismiss an employee however it breaks the law. Therefore an employer would be excepted to find an alternative job title before choosing to dismiss an employee. Employers have a responsibly to ensure that an employee is treated fairly. The following topic will discuss key legislation related to
This book also elaborates on the study of rulemaking by giving examples through cases, studies, loads of government documentation and interviews with policy makers. Following the information and chapters is really easy. The book is illustrated with clear tables, charts, and figures. Each chapter is clearly defined and tables/figures are clearly marked after the table of contents.
You have been asked by the state representative to analyze and write a report on a very important piece of legislation. You have kept track of this legislation, but been having a...
Most individuals with a general background knowledge of the United States Federal Government system are aware that in order for a bill to become a law, it must first pass a majority vote in Congress. There is, however, a very important step in the legislative process that sometimes goes unnoticed. The committee system of the legislation process ensures that the appropriate attention is given to each bill introduced to Congress. Each member of both chambers are assigned to committees and subcommittees, and are expected to become subject matter experts in their respective roles as committee members.
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
Examples include rumination of an employee due to drug use and layoffs during times of downturn (Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart, & Wright, 2014, p. 305). Voluntary turnover is turnover initiated by the employee, often when the organization would prefer to keep them (Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart, & Wright, 2014, p. 305). Examples of these are employee retirement, or when an employee takes a job at a different organization. Both turnovers are costly to the organizations, training new hires takes time and money and replacing those works is expensive. Employees that left because of extreme job dissatisfaction can deliver bad publicity and shine an unfavorable light towards the organization in which the employee
punishable by removal, or, if the agency refuses to remove the employee, by forfeiture by the affected state or locality of
It has been suggested that this type of legislation has largely been introduced to fi...
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.
National legislations provide guidance for local policies and procedures. All policies and procedures are subject to review and must be adjusted/updated accordingly.
to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s...
The distinction between an unfair prejudice petition and a statutory derivative action has always been in the nature of remedy sought by the claimant. This is arguably the point where a distinction is drawn as to whether a statutory derivative action or an unfair prejudice petition should be pursued. A d...
part of the Doctrine Hedley Byrne and Co. Ltd V Heller and. Partners Ltd (1964), Rondel V Worsley (1969).
In Krell v. Henry {1903} a plea of frustration succeeded because the court held that the common purpose for which the contact was entered into, could no longer be carried out. But in the same year for similar set of facts, the Court of Appeal decided in Herne Bay v. Hutton [1903] that the contract had not been frustrated because the "common formation of the contract" had not changed. It clearly was a policy decision which shows the reluctance of the courts to provide an escape route for a party for whom the contract ha...
The English Law on Vicarious Liability An employer is responsible for damage caused by the torts of his employees acting in the course of employment. This is known as ‘vicarious liability’[1]. Essentially, vicarious liability is where the employer is generally substituted in terms of liability for the employee, the employee also has liability but the resources of the employer such as insurance makes them more financially attractive to the claimant. The mechanism of vicarious liability is arguably the best compromise between the needs of tort victims and the freedom of businesses as the employer usually has insurance to cover the tort of the employee, making it more financially viable to the employer than directly compensating the claimant.
These parts of the act can be used so long as they do not conflict