Employment Law Research Essay

The relationship between employers and employees, as well as that of employees with other employees within a given organization or business, is governed by British labor law, also known as employment law. The UK's charter of rights at employment benefits its citizens less than other countries. The primary concepts and elements of the legal systems discussed in scenario B relate to the relationship between employees and employer-employee communication. Most of the legal employment processes are covered by the National Minimum Wage Act and the Working Time Regulations, both of which were passed in 1998. With the guidance of the Employment Rights Act that was enforced in 1996, it is simpler to interpret the dilemmas encountered at workplaces. This paper covers a discussion on three important scenarios on employment law and the relevant legal issues that pertain to the same.

a). Ade and Equality Act 2010

According to Manfredi (2017), the Equality Act enforced in 2010 protects individuals at the workplace from discrimination of any kind within the same environment. Mainly, the Act acts as a replacement of the current anti-discrimination act, but only with a slight Act, presenting the law as one that can be understood mutually. In this regard, Ada fits into using the Equality Act 2010 for her protection, since one of the issues covered in the Act includes Race Relations Act of 1976.

Moreover, the equality rights that have been enacted after the implementation of October 2010 include the basic framework against discrimination and harassment at the place of work by an individual. Further, the Act covers victimization of during service provision or in public events and different associations. The British Telenet Limited, which is the company that Ade works at, makes it difficult, through the employees like Rory, for Ade to continue working over there. In this regard, as an old woman, Ade feels discriminated and neglected by her fellow employees, an expression that can be affirmed as discrimination and alienation of the highest order, as per the Equality Act of 2010.

Additionally, the Act has a different segment that highlights discrimination against age explicitly. The draft of equality advocates for the age discrimination that is against adults. In this light, there is inclusive of services that are provided in different companies by the victimized individuals like Ade, qualifying her into using the Equality Act of 2010. The ban was first introduced in October 2012 making it officially unlawful to discriminate different adults on the aging approach. Through the prohibition against age discrimination, there is an assurance, which is an outcome of instances that are genuinely on age discrimination. However, none is outlawing of other events on treatments that may be justifiable or beneficial to the individuals filing the complaint.

Interestingly, there has been a highlight on how the legal systems against age discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 operate to avoid small legitimate misunderstanding. Through the Guide to Equality about age, Ade can apprehend on specific issues that may help her use against Rory and Phil. The Act further affirms that an individual of any race has the right to comfortable environment in a place of work, far from harassment or direct and indirect discrimination. The act embraces the fact that people should handle one another based on the content of their personalities unlike other approaches like social illusions that make them uncomfortable and feel non-existence (Kirton, 2017).

Harassment

According to the UK and the EU legal systems, there are two major components of discrimination; direct and indirect. When describing direct perception, the system affirms that it is treating an individual based on the protected personality from them. On the other hand, indirect discrimination is apprehended as the treatment of an employee by the employer based on how the employer justifies the operation of issues within the specific organization. In this light, from the scenario, Ade has a right of filing a complaint against her workmates, since all they display fall under the Equality Act 2010 on harassment. Presently, harassment is one of the independent torts in the UK that does not require any form of justification for someone to raise a complaint against. As such, it does not demand any comparator in this regard for justice to take place. According to sections 26 and 40, harassment is one of the underlying issues that lower individual's self-esteem, thus poor production and weak performance at the workplace. The definition of these sections is that it is a situation by which an individual feels like their dignity and self-esteem has been violated and tortured (Moses, 2017). On the other hand, the person may either also feel intimated and discriminated from the same action by the colleagues of an employer from a private or a public sector within the United Kingdom Government.

For instance, if Ade files a lawsuit against the workmates, Telenet will be questionable for the insecurity of the victim, since the Act also affirms that the employer should ensure such harassment occasions do not occur twice or several instances to the same person. The Equality Duty Act of the 2010 Act also advocates for proper identification or reliable environment that would make an employee comfortable. According to Kok (2017), the Equality Duty is subjected to the Great Britain as well as the public sectors that operate the different businesses within the United Kingdom. The focus of this segment is to eliminate the tendency of discrimination at work, through the advancement of equal social and economic opportunities for different individuals. Moreover, the Act executes positive actions towards the employers, which should help them advocate for safer and serene environment for the employees within the organizations or companies. Through the adaptation of positive measures, there will be a higher achievement of more equality for both the employer and employees within the company.

Justification

According to the United Kingdom legal system, discrimination in the workplace is justifiable, given that in the past different case laws and successful lawsuits had been used. Far from the rest of the case files presented in the United Kingdom, direct age discrimination, as per the EA of 2010, has openings to justification based on the same principles. However, the condition before this process is held is that every individual should go through the aging process concerning the legal systems within the Great Britain. In the case of Wolf v Stadt Frankfurt am Main, it is affirmed that the approach of one being under 30 years old for them to be joining the firefighting company is genuinely understood, for fitness reasons. The court ruled on this matter, stating that age discrimination had nothing to do with the verdict that was presented. According to Conaghan (2017), women in the UK should be treated rightfully according to the legal system, despite the age differences, and especially in the places of work. In this light, the age discrimination instances of Ade is different, however, since it is accompanied by racial issues within the workplace, being founded by the same individual. Overall, there is no justification for harassment or victimization in the United Kingdom case laws or systems.

Consequences of Going against the Equality Act 2010

Should there be resistance from the Rory or Phil; the Equality Act 2010 affirms that should a person go against the elements and segments highlighted within the Act. Thus, the Commission of Equality, as well as Human Rights from the British Government, holds a role of challenging the actions taken by either an employer or an employee to go against the Act (Grogan, 2017). The EHRC seeks to execute proper consequences against any individual surpassing the legal system within this act. Should there be such instance; the evidence should then be presented to the judicial chambers for the advice on how to handle the subordinate staffs that discriminated against Ade. Based on the UK legal system, such individuals opt to be imprisoned for at least six months.

b). Suzy and the Beheading Videos

The employment or labor law in the United Kingdom affirms that through the Equality Act of 2010, every individual is entitled to equal treatment within the workplace (Henderson & Lacko, 2017). Suzy has the right to express how she feels in the workplace, given that under the department of website development, some videos appear as horrifying and abnormal to her. In this regard, Suzy should not be mistreated because of the beheading video that she came across from the YouTube.

The existence of Employment Law Regulations in the UK, under the Equality Regulations, directly influences the scenario that is observed from Suzy's relevance and claims on mistreatment within the workplace. Kok (2017) affirms that regardless of a person's background, they deserve the right to fair treatment within every place, especially at work, since fair and equal opportunities to everyone boosts their self-esteem. According to the discrimination law, the hiring of employees requires a justified contract that should be signed by both the employer and the employee. In the case of Suzy, there should be a referral to the letter that was signed by both parties, to agree with the line manager on the grounds by which she should be mistreated or fired.

According to the Employment Contract in the United Kingdom, there should be both understandings from the employer and employee before the termination of the agreed terms of employment. In this regard, apart from the retirement, death or sanity cases, other forms of dismissal should be addressed with a notice beforehand within a specified company. For both the employer and the employee, there should be a minimum period allocated for the termination of the contract as presented by the company, not on an irregular basis as it is with the Line's Manager and Suzy. Moreover, the United Kingdom Government is currently developing the model platform that should be used by the settlement agreement, which would be utilized by both the employees and the employers. Hoque et al. (2017) affirm that, through the equality and the correct treatment in workplaces, there should be a minimal case of low production levels within the same company, as the employees would be in good shape to perform better. Through this template, the harassment and mistreatment in the workplace shall have been reduced, given that the primary concerns on workplace security and comfort shall have been addressed adequately.

Suzy may also affirm her case under the direct discrimination section since it is an employer to employee indifference. In this light, Suzy is going through bullying at the workplace, which has in the past been known to demoralize the instances of any participation by the individual or the victim. According to the Practical Law in the UK, indirect discrimination illustrates that an employer mistreats the employee without any form of justification under the legal systems or the employment contract that has been displayed in the United Kingdom. In this light, it becomes difficult for Suzy to find any reason for her contract being terminated due to the beheading videos of the ISIS.

Under the European Legislation, the legal system in the UK on the Employment Rights 1996 highlights in the first section that the employer should have written a specific document to the employee with the necessary provision of components of how the employment process should be carried out within a particular period. Through a burden of proof, Suzy can raise a claim in connection with her abrupt employment termination, a step that has seen her frustrated and worried about her income provision and earning on a daily basis.

Justification

As per the case laws in the Great Britain, the employment law affirms that there should not be a wrongful dismissal within a specified company or organization unless it is within the contract signed by the employee and employer. In this light, the rights of the employees should be in the context of the charter that depicts the ERA 1996 Act on fighting for the employees' rights and privileges in work environment. On a common legal system, the only term understood in an interactive way about the termination of employment was on the issuing of one month's notice by the employer to the employee. Therefore, there is no justification as to why the line's manager at Telenet would issue the same letter to Suzy, on the grounds that she explained are sincere. From the past case laws, Green V Wright's judgment on the employment status reached a verdict with the Chief Justice Lord Coleridge affirming that there should be a notice one month prior for the "respectable" employees like Suzy. On the other hand, the lower class employees should expect lesser days of notice, but still, there should be a notice presented to help the employer and employee reach an agreement. In this regard, any instruction by the head of the company on discriminating against a particular consumer equally falls under the same claim and should be treated on the right platforms within the UK legal systems and matters.

Consequences

Should Suzy present the claim in the UK law, the Line's manager and the entire company are obliged to compensate her for defamation of feeling unsafe as well as making sure that she has a job security with the company. Also, the UK law recognizes that the employer should be more specific in presenting what is written on the contract law document, an act that will help in such cases, mainly if there was a signature from both the employer and employee. In the case law of Gisda Cyf V Barratt, there was an emphasis by Lord Kerr which affirmed that if an employment contract impacted the rights of the statute, then the procedure of construction would be logically alienated from the general legal system contract. Additionally, this was ruled based on the fact that there is an undisputable relationship that the employee has with the company, which is that of dependency in this regard.

Farzana and Sexual Discrimination as Per the Equality Act of 2010

Sexual discrimination is among the types of discrimination presented by the Equality Act of 2010 ( Hoque et al., 2017). According to this Act, sexual discrimination falls under the indirect discrimination by the employer who justifies their concern and efforts. As such, this specific perception is affirmed as irrelevant, primarily if it comprises of discriminatory form that would only benefit the employer. However, in the case of Farzana who secured the job with Telenet under the graduate recruitment programs with their school, the policies differ from the expectations that she would have wanted in the first place.

According to the Telenet Policy, between 25 and 30 years of age, a person is eligible to the promotion of up to executive offices within the company. Farzana has no right of claim on sexual harassment or discrimination because of lack of development from the Telenet company ( Hoque et al., 2017). Given that the Equality Act of 2010 affirms that the individuals that have encountered sexual harassment fall under the indirect discrimination, she does not fit into such states. The only exception highlighted by the Equality Act of 2010 is that of equal wages for both females and males within a company. In this case, Farzana is not seeking the claim of payments but rather a promotional level within the company. It is therefore relevant to accommodate and dispute the fact that Farzana can file for sexual discrimination.

Justification

Under sexual harassment or orientation, the UK law protects individuals against discrimination within the places of work. Sections 26 and 40 of the Equality Law states that the legal systems should be engaged only if the person has factual claims against a person on the sexual harassment grounds, an instance that is not true in this case (Grogan, 2017).

Consequences

Should there be a sexual discrimination act exercised in Telenet, Farzana has the right to file a claim against that specific individual, whom after the assertions by the jury, would be imprisoned, according to the evidence presented. However, Kirton (2017) affirms that in this case, the consequences lies with Farzana, who should blame the recruitment team from the school, for not informing her of the policies by Telenet, especially with the 25 to 30 years promotional qualifications.

In conclusion, the employment law or labor law in the United Kingdom is one that offers adequate information on how issues should be resolved, depending on their occurrence. As the same time, the Equality Act 2010 affirms that giving employees ample environment and time results in high production rates within different levels and departments of the specified company.

Reference List

Conaghan, J., 2017. Labour Law and Feminist Method. International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, 33(1), pp.93-114.

Grogan, J., 2017. The (not so) great repeal bill, part 1: only uncertainty is certain. LSE Brexit.

Henderson, C., Lacko, S.E. and Thornicroft, G., 2017. The Time to Change Programme to Reduce Stigma and Discrimination in England and Its Wider Context. In The Stigma of Mental Illness-End of the Story? (pp. 339-356). Springer International Publishing.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-27839-1_18

Hoque, K., Earls, J., Conway, N. and Bacon, N., 2017. Union representation, collective voice and job quality: An analysis of a survey of union members in the UK finance sector. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 38(1), pp.27-50.

Kirton, G. and Greene, A.M., 2017. Understanding Diversity Management in the UK. In Corporate Social Responsibility and Diversity Management (pp. 59-73). Springer International Publishing.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-43564-0_3

Kok, A., 2017. The promotion of equality and prevention of unfair discrimination Act 4 of 2000: How to balance religious freedom and other human rights in the higher education sphere. United Kingdom Journal of Higher Education, 31(6), pp.25-44.

http://jsaa.ac.za/index.php/sajhe/article/view/1640

Manfredi, S. (2017). Increasing Gender Diversity in Senior Roles in HE: Who Is Afraid of Positive Action?. Administrative Sciences, 7(2), 19.

http://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/7/2/19/htm

Malone, M., 2017. The Concept of Indirect Discrimination by Association: Too Late for the UK?. Industrial Law Journal, 46(1), pp.144-162.

Moses, C., 2017. How Equal is the Equality Act 2010? A Critical Assessment of the Effects of Harmonisation of Discrimination Law with Regard to Age and Disability Claims.