Whether English Hearts Film Corporation Will Be Able to Enforce Clause 13 - Essay Example

?Advise Ian whether English Hearts Film Corporation will be able to enforce clause 13 (a) and (b) against him. A covenant between employees and theiremployers with the aim of preventing employees from joining a competitor’s business for some period and/or within a certain distance from the employer’s place of business is enforceable in a court of law provided the terms of the breach of covenant are reasonable. For a case in point, in Putsman v. Taylor, 1 a defendant who was employed in a tailoring business had agreed not to seek employment with the employer’s close competitors within 3 specific locations within the city of Birmingham until 3 years had elapsed since the time of leaving the employment. The employee breached the covenant and worked with one of the competitors in the course of the 3 years, hence forcing the plaintiff to seek court injunction restraining him from continuing with the competitor’s business (Lewis and Sargeant, 2004). The injunction was granted by the court on the grounds that it was reasonable to both parties. Therefore, the reasonableness of the terms of the covenant is the important factor a court considers when making a ruling. In our study case, the two clauses are reasonable, for instance, because 12 months is not a very long time and 20 miles radius is a fair distance. However, possible breach must be directly related to these terms. Clause 13 (a) intends to restraint Ian from working as a Director for any UK-based Film Corporation, which means that this cannot be enforceable because Ian left to become a Senior lecturer rather than a Director. However, Clause 13 (b) will be enforceable because the defendant is leaving to work for a firm, which is connected with film industry located within the 12 restricted miles. Advise Julia of any rights that she may have under the Equality Act 2010 in the way that she has been treated. Equality Act 2010 protects Julia from discrimination based on her gender. Her employer owes her a right to establish policies, which should protect her from being discriminated by the male colleagues. Under sex discrimination, the Act protects her from being treated less favorably by her colleagues merely because she is a female and has been promoted. Julia’s colleagues have created an unfair, hostile, intimidating, humiliating, degrading and offensive environment for her considering the actions they have unleashed on her. All these acts have been spelt out clearly under this Act and she can successfully file a suit against her perpetrators. Altogether, the Equity Act 2010 protects Julia from demotion from her status on discrimination grounds, her employer does not have a right to demote her unless there is some legitimate reason such as poor performance or incapacitation (Wadham et al., 2012). Advise Kai on whether she can be classed as an employee for purposes of claiming benefits. Under the UK employment law, Kai could be eligible for payment of benefits after employment if she was contributing to a pension scheme while in job. There are a variety of social security schemes, some of which are compulsory and must be implemented by the employers. An example of such compulsory schemes is the state social scheme, which entitles the employer to share the monthly payments with the employees. Nonetheless, only those employees who are employed full-time takes part in the compulsory and the state pension scheme contribution. Although Kai has worked for English Hearts Film Corporation for eight years now, the employment contract still recognizes her as a casual employee and hence not eligible for the compulsory social scheme contribution (Lewis and Sargeant, 2004). Notably, however, Kai could be eligible to receive the benefits even without having contributed if his job is terminated unfairly. From the terms of his job, it seems he has worked for the University for the past eight years with 12 months full payment every year plus other benefits. This means that his job cannot be terminated by of lack of enrollment without being unfair to him. The time he has worked for this institution with full salary every month is very long and the law protects him from unfair termination from job by requiring the employer to pay him termination benefits regardless of whether he participated in a social contribution scheme or not. This means that Kai may be ineligible for payment of benefits on the grounds that he had not participated in any contribution scheme, but he is eligible on the grounds that his job has been terminated unfairly. The fact that no students have yet enrolled for the spring semester in 2013 does not permit the University to terminate such a long time worker from his job, and if he must be terminated then the University owes him compensation in terms of benefits (Lewis and Sargeant, 2004). Advise Lawrence on the fairness of his dismissal. To consider whether Lawrence was dismissed fairly or not, the impact of the conviction on the employee’s role in the place of work is an issue of paramount importance. If the employer can proof categorically that his decision to dismiss Lawrence is associated with the chance of having future trust and confidence in him, then he has a strong ground to dismiss him. For a case in point, in Singh v London Country Bus Services Limited,2 an employee who dealt with the employer’s cash was convicted of fraudulence. Following a disciplinary investigation and petition, the employer dismissed the employee straight away. The dismissal was deemed reasonable considering that the employee misbehavior, though outside the place of work, maybe be a considerable basis for his dismissal, given that it could have had a substantial impact on his job if he continued with the employment (Employment Rights Act 1996) Whenever an employee is found guilty of deceitful behavior, it becomes very easy for the employee to dismiss them on the grounds of bad behavior. Therefore, if Lawrence’s employer has a strong ground to show that possession of cannabis is related to bad behavior, then the dismissal will be justifiable. Nonetheless, Lawrence’s employer must have a sound conviction that Lawrence is guilty before dismissing him. Therefore, the employer should undertake an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the conviction of Lawrence before dismissing him. Also, if it is found that the Lawrence’s employer had a policy indicating that the employees will be dismissed if convicted outside work for any reason, and which must have been communicated to Lawrence, then there will be a strong ground to support that the dismissal is fair (Advice Guide, 2012). References Advice Guide., 2012. Contracts of employment. (Online) Avalable from: [Accessed 19 December 2012] Employment Rights Act 1996., (Online). Available from: < http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/part/X> [Accessed 19 December 2012] Lewis, D. and Sargeant, M., 2004. Essentials of Employment Law. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Wadham et al., 2012. Blackstone's Guide to the Equality Act 20. OUP Oxford: Blackstone's Guides. Cases Putsman v Taylor [1927] 1 KB 637 Singh v London Country Bus Services Limited [1976] IRLR 176 Read More