Need an Assignment Helper in the UK? Native Assignment Help is here to support you every step of the way. Our skilled experts specialize in a wide range of subjects and are committed to delivering high-quality assignments that meet the highest academic standards.
The United Kingdom employment law is not a single piece of legislation, rather it is a set of Acts and codes which has been implemented over the years in the region depending on the needs and rights of the employers as well as the employees. it can be hence, stated that the major source of the United Kingdom employment Law assignment is legislation and statutes. The presented submission is on the cases faced by the company Spotless Cleaning Solutions. The report is presented outlining three cases and instances which have been faced by the company by four of the employees who are unwilling to attend the training program of three days outside the locality. The four employees have been two single mothers who are unable to attend the program as they could not leave their children for two days, a senior salesman Richard Buff whose ex-girlfriend is expecting to deliver their baby, and Yasmin Fogger who had a bad experience with injuries in a previously attended program.
The report highlights the legislations of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Workmen Compensation Act 1923, the Health and Safety at Workplace Act 1974 Equity Act 2010, and various other employment rules and regulations. Briefly, the company shall face the possible claims of compensation from Yasmin Fogger, a claim of rejection of paternity leave by Richard Buff, and a claim of rejection to permit the two female single mothers and exempt them from the training.
Facts of the case
Spotless Cleaning Solutions Ltd was a company founded in the year 2006 by Joan and Margery who sold the company on retirement to Dave. The new owner Dave planned the growth of the company by implementing various strategies that could improve teamwork among the employees and hence, he planned a two-day trip where the employees would remain away from home and practice certain tasks which would boost enthusiasm and teamwork among the employees. it was also stated that the trip was a compulsion for the employees and many employees responded positively towards it. Whereas, three employees were not willing to attend the trip. The employees were two female members who stated that they were single mothers and could not leave their children alone for two days. There was also a senior salesman Richard Buff who stated an excuse on the ground that his girlfriend was about to give birth that week and hence, he would be on paternity leave. Another employee was Yasmin Fogger who was recently recruited and stated that she was not mentally prepared to attend the trip as her experience of a similar trip was not good and she suffered mental trauma due to which she was unable to work for several months. All the demands of the three employees were rejected and soon the three employees signed a formal letter stating that attending the trip would exceed their weekly working hours to more than 48 hours but this contention was rejected by Dave.
On the last day of the trip, while Yasmin Fogger was completing one of the tasks, she slipped from a slope causing a serious head injury and also broke her arm. She was admitted to hospital and she shall not be able to work for several months. Such an accident has given rise to several issues that shall be faced by the company Spotless Cleaning Solutions Ltd and these issues shall be discussed further.
Legal issues faced by the company Spotless Cleaning Solutions
As per the facts mentioned in the scenario, there are three claims that the company could face. The claims are from the side of the four employees who are unwilling to attend the training program due to their issues. The three claims to be faced by the company is as follows:
Whether the company be liable before the tribunal for rejecting the application of the two single mothers for not attending the training program?
Whether the company be liable before the tribunal for refusing paternity leave to senior salesman Richard Buff?
Whether the company shall be liable before the tribunal to pay compensation to Yasmin Fogger for the injuries she has suffered as well as whether the company shall pay salary to her even if she is absent from her duty for some months.
First issue
As per the United Kingdom employment laws, the companies shall make the workers and employees work only for 48 hours per week. But it is on the employees if they wish to opt out from working for only 48 hours per week. As per the first issue of the single mothers, firstly, the company is making them work more than 48 hours a week. As per the Working Time Regulations 1998, companies are not allowed to force workers to work for more than 48 hours per week unless the workers have opted out from working more. Apart from this regulation, there is also application of Section 57A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 which provides that the employees are permitted to take time off from their working hours if they have dependents. In the first case, the two single mothers are unwilling to attend the training program as they have small children who cannot be left alone for two days. The rejection of their application for this reason by the company is a violation of the employment rights of the two workers (Aylott, 2018). Hence, the matter can be brought up before the tribunal where the two single mothers can claim compensation from the company for the violation of their rights under the enacted statute. Moreover, the company is also in violation of making the workers work for exceeding hours as per the regulations. Hence, the company shall also face an issue under the Working Time Regulations 1998.
Second issue
The second claim which the company shall face is by the senior salesman Richard Buff who is unwilling to attend the training due to the pregnancy of his ex-girlfriend who is about to deliver their child in the same week. On analyzing the facts, it has been observed that the provision of Section 80A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is made applicable in this case as this provision provides for paternity leave of the employees. This provision states that if the employee satisfies the employer the need for paternity leave, the employer shall give him leave for a requisite time. Hence, the company shall face a claim before the tribunal as the company has rejected the application of Richard Buff for his leave and forced him to attend the training program (Cabrelli, 2020).
Third issue
The third issue faced by the company shall be the claim of compensation from Yasmin Fogger as she sustained serious injuries on the last day of the training camp. Due to her past bad experience of injuries, she refused to attend the training program but the company forced her to attend and also told her that disciplinary action shall be taken if the employees refused to attend the program. As a result, Yasmin Fogger has sustained a broken arm and also mental trauma which shall lead to her absence from duty for several months. The company shall face the claim of compensation from Yasmin Fogger and also the claim of salary during the months for which she shall be absent from her duty (Fagan, et. al., 2017).
The strengths and weaknesses of each case
The facts provided in the scenario provide for three different situations that may be faced by the company Spotless Cleaning Solutions. The first is the case of two single mothers, the second of Richard Buff, and the third of Yasmin Forger. In each of the cases, there are chances of success in the claims but on the other hand, it has been analyzed that the company is also a benefit at some places. As the matter shall be brought before the tribunal, some provisions are in support of the four employees but there are also provisions supporting the decision of the company. The strengths and weaknesses of each case are outlined below:
Case 1: Two single mothers
As per the facts of the case, the two single mothers were not able to attend the training program as they could not leave their children at home for two days. However, the company forced them to attend the program and also stated that disciplinary action would be taken if they refused to attend the training session. Hence, the claim of the two mothers can succeed under the provision of Section 57A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 which provides that the employees can take time off from their working hours if they have dependents to look for. The section provides for children, spouses, and old parents as dependents (Kasmuri, et. al., 2021). Further, it is also identified that the matter, in this case, shall be referred to the tribunal as Section 57B provides that the employees can take the matter before the tribunal against the employer. Reference of the case Qua v. John Ford Morrison Solicitors [2003] ICR 482 can be taken in which Mrs Qua was absent from her work for 17 days due to the medical condition of her young son. She did not inform her employer but Cox J held that Mrs Qua had not done anything wrong as the provision under Section 57A does not require to give a daily update of being absent from work.
But the weakness has been also identified in this case which is the exception for Section 57A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 which provides that the employees are only allowed to take time off from the working hours to make necessary arrangements for the dependents. This section provides that if the employees have reasonable time to make necessary arrangements for the dependents, they shall not be allowed to take additional time off from working hours. The training program was not at an immediate date and the two single mothers had enough time to make necessary arrangements for their children (Rose and Busby, 2017).
But to succeed in the claim, there is an additional requirement of information and in this case, it shall be important to know whether the employees applied for time off within reasonable time or not. If the application was filed within a reasonable time, the employees have a chance o succeed.
Case 2: Senior salesman Richard Buff
The facts of the second case state that the senior salesman Richard Buff was about to take paternity leave for the delivery of his ex-girlfriend who was about to deliver their child in the same week. On applying the provision of Section 80A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, it has been identified that Richard Buff is entitled to take paternity leave from his work as this provision allows the employees to take the leave in such respect. Hence, the strength of this case lies in the statutory provision of Section 80A of the Act. But the weakness of the case lies in the relationship between Richard Buff and his girlfriend as they both are not present in the relationship. Hence, the tribunal may reject the claim of Richard Buff stating that the current relation of both Richard and his girlfriend does not exist. Further, information required to succeed in this case is whether Richard is still in connection with his ex-girlfriend and whether she requires Richard’s presence during her maternity or not (O’Brien and Twamley, 2017). Hence, Richard shall be required to present a written statement of his girlfriend stating that she requires his presence during her maternity.
Reference of the case Cumming v. British Airways Plc UKEAT/0337/19/JOJ can be taken in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that an employer is entitled to get paternity leave for 18 weeks to take care of the child. The tribunal also held that this provision is equal for both males and females.
Case 3: Yasmin Fogger
As per the facts of this case, Yasmin Fogger was injured on the last day of the training. She was unwilling to attend the training as she had a bad experience in the past attending such training sessions. She was injured and was absent from her work for 8 months. The strength of this case lies in the claim of compensation that Yasmin could claim from the company for the injuries she has sustained. Further, she can also succeed in claiming for salary for the months she shall be absent from her work. On application of Section 64 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, it can be stated that Yasmin shall be entitled to get remuneration from the company for being absent from work on medical grounds (Zahn, 2017). Further, the strength of the case also lies in the statute Health and Safety at Workplace Act 1974 which provides that the employer shall take care and necessary measures to ensure the safety and security of the employees at their workplace.
The only weakness of this case is seen in the fact that based on experience; Yasmin cannot refuse to attend the training session presently. Further, on applying the exception mentioned under Section 65 of the Act of 1996, it has been observed that there are certain circumstances when the company shall not pay remuneration for being absent from work. The circumstance is the state of mental disorder. As Yasmin has also faced mental trauma, the tribunal may refuse to order payment of remuneration and she could only be entitled to damages for her loss (Horton, et. al., 2018).
Further information to succeed in the claim requires the medical certificate and report of the doctor who shall assert the time for which she shall be unable to work.
Failure of the company in risk assessment of the training program
It is also analyzed that under the provisions of the Health and Safety Act 1974, the company is required to make a necessary assessment of the risk during the training program. The company Spotless Cleaning Solutions is under an obligation to carry out necessary risk assessment as this is the most important aspect of managing health and safety. Reference of the case Allison v. London Underground Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 71can be taken in which it was held that the company is required to take risk assessment of every task required to be done by the employees. As per the facts of this case, the train driver has severe pain in her thumb due to prolonged use of brakes and she rests her thumb against a handle. She suffered injury as a result and after her injury, the employer informed the employees not to rest their thumb against it. It was held that the employer was in breach of duty and also failed to assess the risk associated with driving.
In the case of Yasmin Fogger, the company Spotless Cleaning Solutions also failed to make a risk assessment in respect of the training camp. The company failed to take necessary measures to prevent chances of injury and as a result, Yasmin suffered injuries. It is also analyzed based on the above case law if the employer can foresee the injury and still fails to take necessary measures, the employer shall be held liable(Horton, et. al., 2018).In this case, Yasmin slipped from a steep slope and fell several feet. The employer Dave could have foreseen the risk and should have made necessary precautions to prevent accidents and injuries. Hence, the company shall be held liable for compensation to Yasmin Fogger.
Recommendation for Spotless Cleaning Solutions
The recommendation to the company Spotless Cleaning Solutions includes two aspects. One where the company shall succeed and the rejection of the company to the employers shall stand valid whereas, the other where the employees shall succeed in their claims against the company. It is also to be noted that there are two cases where there shall be a settlement done between the employer and the employees. In the first case of the two single mothers, the employer Dave, and the employees shall enter into a settlement. The best way of settling the claim is through an alternate mode of dispute resolution that is negotiation or mediation. In this case, the employer and the employee shall enter into the settlement as the employees have fewer chances to succeed in the compensation claim.
In the second case of Richard Buff, there shall also be a settlement between the employer and the employee as the case of Richard is also having very few chances of succeeding due to the present relationship with his ex-girlfriend(O’Brien and Twamley, 2017). Hence, it is advised to the company to enter into a negotiation with Richard as he is a senior executive of the company and the HR department shall look towards the retention of such employees.
In the last case of Yasmin Fogger, the company shall be liable to pay compensation to Yasmin and this claim shall be contested before the tribunal as Yasmin has suffered severe injuries due to the inappropriate measures of safety by the company. The company shall have to contest the claim of Yasmin and it shall be liable to pay compensation as well as remuneration to the injured employee Yasmin. The only thing in which the company could succeed in contesting is a reduction of remuneration which is to be paid to Yasmin (Horton, et. al., 2018).
Conclusion
Thus, to conclude it can be stated that the liability of Spotless Cleaning Solutions can be determined as per the statute of the United Kingdom regarding employment laws. The company is allowed to reject the applications in the first two cases as it has given reasonable time to the concerned employees to make necessary arrangements for the dependents. But in the third case of Yasmin, the company shall be liable to pay compensation and salary to her as she has sustained injuries due to the lack of safety measures by the employer. Hence, the claim of the first two employees can be settled but the claim of the last employee shall be contested before the tribunal.
References
Allison v. London Underground Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 71
Aylott, E., 2018. Employment Law: A Practical Introduction. Kogan Page Publishers.
Cabrelli, D., 2020. Employment law in context. Oxford University Press.
Cumming v. British Airways Plc UKEAT/0337/19/JOJ
Employment Rights Act 1996, s 57A, 57B, 64, 65, 80A
Fagan, C., Hebson, G., Tavora, I. and Grimshaw, D., 2017. Making work more equal: A new labour market segmentation approach(p. 368). Manchester University Press.
Horton, J., Cameron, A., Devaraj, D., Hanson, R.T. and Hajkowicz, S.A., 2018. Workplace Safety Futures: The impact of emerging technologies and platforms on work health and safety and workers’ compensation over the next 20 years. Canberra, ACT, Australia: CSIRO.
Kasmuri, S.H.M., Ismail, Z. and Nordin, R.M., 2021. Comparative Study of Existing Employment Regulatory in Malaysia and Selected Common Law Countries. International Journal of Sustainable Construction Engineering and Technology, 12(1), pp.79-87.
O’Brien, M. and Twamley, K., 2017. Fathers taking leave alone in the UK–a gift exchange between mother and father? In Comparative Perspectives on Work-Life Balance and Gender Equality(pp. 163-181). Springer, Cham.
Qua v. John Ford Morrison Solicitors [2003] ICR 482
Rose, E. and Busby, N., 2017. Power relations in employment disputes. Journal of Law and Society, 44(4), pp.674-701.
Working Time Regulations 1998
Zahn, R., 2017. New labor laws in the old member state: trade union responses to European enlargement. Cambridge University Press.
