Employment LAw - Case Study Example

EMPLOYMENT LAW Introduction Regulations at the work place have neb in existence for long. However, rules pertaining to the conduct of the employees were drafted thirty years ago. The employment regulations in the UK re majorly concerned with the protection of the rights of the workers of companies. The rights, the laws seek to protect for the welfare of the employees are anti-discrimination, favorable conditions of work and the minimum wages of all the employees of the UK. The employees are also protected against undue dismissal; from a work and assurance of redundancy payments.

Case studyThe case study highlights a breach of terms and conditions of work. Additionally, there is direct discrimination. The UK company law requires that all employees should undergo rigorous training before undertaking any sought of job. Louise ignores this fact and fails to equip Paul with relevant skills pertaining to his cashier job. In fact, she does not even intend to make arrangements of training the newly employed worker. According to Delaney and Huselid (2010, p. 956), any inconvenience in service delivery is attributed to the lack of training.

In this regard, the bank manager takes advantage of his lack of experience and directly mistreats him before the bank clients. The harassment of Paul is humiliating given that the boss victimized him while the bank clients were watching. The Employment Act, 1996, classifies any abuse and disparaging remarks as harassment. The UK equality Act 2010 stipulates that every citizen has a right to fair and non-discriminative treatment (Hofstede, 2008, p. 67). The Act covers discrimination based on sex, disability and belief.

This situation notwithstanding, the common law includes discriminatory treatment of employees, in the prohibition. The UK legislation also allows all workers to be members of trade unions. The unions serve as a shield for the workers. Besides the common law legislation, the trade union protects the welfare of all employees who have subscribed into trade union membership (Schuler, Randal and Susan, 2008, p. 34). The move of Paul was inappropriate because leaving the job was not a solution to his problem.

He should seek the indulgence of the trade union in the matter and invoke the relevant legislation to his favor. There are many options open to Paul. He can seek constructive dismissal from the job, which will call for a comprehensive compensation of service delivery. Paul also has the option of being reemployed by the assistance of the employment tribunal. The UK transfer of the Undertaking Regulation Act upholds the right to employment continuity (Imberman, 2011, p. 431). In this regard, Paul deserves the right to continue with his cashier job.

The discrimination of Amy is different from that of Paul because it is based on Amy’s religion. This type of discrimination falls under direct discrimination as per the Equality Act 2010. The legislation stipulates that no person should be discriminated on the basis of religion, philosophy or belief (Laurent, 2006, p. 101). The failure of Amy’s employer to promote Amy is discriminated on the grounds of religion and belief. Amy believed in the sanctity of life. Therefore, her conscience could not allow her to the sale fur clothes.

Unfortunately, Amy’s employer could not accommodate Amy’s beliefs. Despite the fact that Amy’s performance in the sales department for the last two years was exemplary.ConclusionThe employers take advantage of the ignorance of the employees on employment rights. The ignorance is the proximate cause of many cases of discrimination, including Paul and Amy’s cases. Therefore, all employees should be versed with the anti-discriminatory legislation in order to protect their rights in the fact of any sought of undue discrimination.

The employees and employers should respect each other’s job in order to achieve equality as per the UK Equality Act 2010. Reference ListDelaney, J. T. and Huselid, M. A. 2006. The Impact of Human Resources Management Practices on Perceptions of Organizational Performance. Academy of Management Journal, Vol.39, No.4: 949 – 969.Hofstede, G. 2008. Motivation, Leadership, and Organization: Do American Theories Apply Abroad? Organizational Dynamics, Summer, AMACOM, A Division of American Management Association.

Imberman, S. A. 2011. Achievement and Behavior in organizations: Drawing a More Complete Picture. The Review of Human Resource Management And Statistics, 93-2: pp. 416-435.Laurent A. 2006. The Cross Cultural Puzzle of International Human Resources Management. Human Resource Management, 15: 91 – 102.Schuler, S Randal and Susan E Jackson. 2008. Human Resource Management. New York: Prentice Hall.