Introduction - Rights and Roles: Job Obligations in UK
"Mutuality of obligations" is the concept that both the employer and the employee have a mutual obligation in a working relationship. This study will illustrate different perspectives associated with the “mutuality of obligations” in the context of the “United Kingdom” (UK) legislative framework in the broader context. This indicates that the employer is required to supply work and remuneration, while the employee is required to complete the work and obey the employer's directions. In addition, a critical awareness of different employee laws of the UK will be incorporated into the study with an appropriate assortment of different cases along with perspectives. Arguments regarding the case law and legislative frameworks would also be reflected in the breakdown with proper assortments.
Demonstrate a critical awareness of the contextual aspects of Employment Law
The concept of the mutuality of obligations is an important legal principle often associated with contract law (Deakin, 2020). It refers to the fundamental idea that for a contract to be viable and enforceable there must be a mutual exchange of promises or obligations between the parties involved. In other words, both parties must give up something of value, or promise to do so, for the contract to be legally binding. “The Employment Rights Act” of 1996 governs several employment rights and protections for workers and employees in the UK (Legislation.gov.uk, 2023). It is a significant element of employment legislation in the UK that covers a wide range of job-related issues. However, frequent amendments have also been laid down to keep it coherent as the changing environments.
Grab The Best Academic Assistance In Just One Click
The case of “Parr V MSR Partners LLP”, of 2022 has been cited as a renowned case regarding the employment law with regard to the mutuality of obligations under the UK legislation (Bailii.org, 2022). There has been a dispute between the accounting firm and the employee who has reached the retirement age however still does not clear its dues. The “Court of Appeal” (CA) adhered to a dispute between an accounting enterprise and a past coordinator of the firm in this case. The CA determined that the appellant LLP's decision to remove the petitioner from the equity alliance as he reached the retirement age specified in the “LLP's members” consensus while remaining as a salaried counterpart did not comprise age intolerance and that he was not authorized to an allocation of the enterprise profits. The litigant learned of the establishment’s intention to sell in September 2018.
Consideration is the legal term used to denote the exchange of something of value between the parties in contract law as every party must be considerate of the other. In a sales contract, one party gives goods or services in exchange for cash consideration from the other party (Atkinson, 2022). In the context of mutuality of obligations, understanding the distinction between unilateral and bilateral contracts is critical. Both parties make promises to each other in a bilateral contract, generating mutual obligations. In a “unilateral contract”, one counterpart assembles a guarantee in relation to the additional counterpart performing a specific measure.
The case of “Uber V Aslam” of 2021 has been profoundly founded on the argument of the conditions of Uber drivers in the UK and what benefits they are getting from the employment regulations in the UK (Ilo.org, 2021). It was one of the most widespread cases that returned the first formation of a case of a “gig worker” before the courts and tribunals in the UK. The "Uber v Aslam" case is a considerable legal confrontation in the UK that concentrated on the employment situation of Uber drivers. A batch of Uber drivers buffed the effort in the UK tribunals, arguing that they should be classified as "workers" instead of “self-employed” contractors that would permit them to have certain occupational privileges and concessions (Fredman and Du Toit, 2019). In the UK, the recognition between staff, employees, and “self-employed” people is significant because it specifies the extent to which a person is authorized to employment privileges and advantages, which includes the “national minimum wage”, “paid holidays”, and preservation from discrimination, whereas employees have additional liberties, that comprises of “statutory sick pay” and the request to assert dishonest layoff. The Supreme Court delivered a judgement a decision in favor of the Uber drivers. The Supreme Court determined that when working for Uber the drivers should be classed as workers instead of “self-employed” (Adams-Prassl, 2023). This meant they had some job rights, such as a minimum wage and paid leave. It has also been reciprocated as a prime case of mutuality of obligations in the broader context court has also upheld the judgment to reduce discrimination among classifications in the broader context.
The case of “Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Ltd”, of 2022 has also been a disputed case between employees and employers in the UK and profoundly reciprocated mutuality of obligations (Citation.co.uk, 2021). In the circumstances, the “Court of Appeal” (CA) maintained the “County Court's” (CC) decision that the Respondent's employer was not liable for bodily wounds sustained by an employer in the workplace boundaries as a result of staff practical jokes. Workplace uncertainties between the defiant’s employees and its contractors were increasing. In that case, one employee utilized a hammer to hit two flammable pellet marks near to the defiant contractor’s ear, causing him to suffer from “noise-induced” hearing failure and tinnitus and obtaining personal hurt claims against the defiant (Motson, 2021). The court had to decide whether the defendant was vicariously accountable or negligently responsible for the employee's conduct.
Evaluation of an ability to present competent and coherent written arguments
"The Equality Act" of 2010 is a piece of legislation that has been enacted in the UK to consolidate as well as enhance earlier anti-discrimination regulations (Gov.uk, 2018). It is a key piece of legislation that tries to safeguard persons from discrimination and boost equality in a combination of areas, including occupation, education, and the provision of “goods and services”. It also compels businesses and service providers to make reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities and promotes the notion of equal pay for equal labor (Legislation.gov.uk, 2023). However, payment discrimination has been found to be prevalent across gig workers despite the legislative obligation of the law.
The case of “Rowstock Ltd and another v Jessemey” in 2014 raised the demand for victimized payment even after leaving the organization in a legal case that appeared before the court (Hand and Hooton, 2023). “The Court of Appeal” ceased unequivocally that the "Equality Act of 2010" protects individuals against victimization after their employment ends, managing previous disagreeing case law on the matter. Employers have had to be more cautious than ever before not to penalize an ex-employee who is undertaking “Equality Act” proceedings against them (Bengtsson, 2019). However, this would involve an employer denying or offering a poor reference to an employee because of a future tribunal claim. It has been cited that employees could not demand their claim on the grounds of victimization after leaving the organization as the court also warned employers to clearly state these terminologies in the job agreement. Ex-employees could not be punished under the legal scrutinization of the equality framework if this has not been mentioned in the agreement (Bengtsson, 2019). The court has upheld the judgment that defines the amount of rights employees have under the equality framework as well and employers also have some duties to punish ex-employees under any background.
The employer and the employee has the duty to enhance their responsibilities in the working environment of an organization to meet the organizational performance (Amjad et al., 2021). In addition, it has been perceived that workers have an obligation to behave honorably and refrain from actions that can jeopardize the interests of their employer (Amjad et al., 2021). This includes not engaging in a business rivalry with the employer during the duty periods in an organization. Hence, obligations to follow legal directives Workers have been expected to follow their employers' reasonable and legal orders. This responsibility makes sure that workers favorably support the goals of the company. A component of UK legislation known as the “Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HASAWA)” lays out an employer's obligations to workers and the general public (Legislation.gov.uk., 2023). The act mandates that companies protect their workers' health and offer a safe workplace. Ensuring the health, safety, and welfare of people at work is a legal obligation for all employers as mandated by laws that include the "Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA) 1974" and "the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999" (Legislation.gov.uk., 2017).
Employers have been required by law to offer a safe workplace, evaluate hazards, and put safety and health precautions in place for their workers (Michaels and Wagner., 2020). In addition, written terms and conditions of employment that contain information regarding salary, working hours, and other pertinent factors, ought to be given by employers to employees (Michaels and Wagner., 2020). Furthermore, it has been figured out that responsibility of employers to uphold a rapport based on confidence and trust with their workforce. This entails fostering a positive work atmosphere and swiftly resolving problems. Hence, it has been reciprocated that the key legislation has been made in the context of building the relationship with the employees and employers.
Critical reflection of an ability to handle primary source material, both case law and legislation
The case law of the employee and the employer is one of the key instances in order to understand the legislation required in the societies (Bunbury, 2019). In addition, it has been associated that the key law has been found that would help to present the implication of the law in the societies and maintain the relationship between the employee and the employer. The case of Rainford v Dorset Aquatics Ltd has been found as one of the case laws that provided the strives overview of the implication of the relationship between the employer and the employee (Gov.uk., 2021). In addition, it has been perceived that the “Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)” in this case maintained the “Employment Tribunal's (ET)” ruling that the claimant has been seen as neither an employee nor worker and could not be able to file claims for unjust termination, notice pay, vacation pay, or unauthorized deductions from pay (Gov.uk., 2021). “The Payment Services Regulations 2017” has given the rights to the employees in order to take the full payments that have been recorded in terms of the on-duty periods in the working territory of the organization (Legislation.gov.uk., 2017). Hence, this PSR has been helping the government in order to make the regulatory compliances that could help to initiate effective legislation practice in the societies (Treasury, 2021). It is the duty of employers in payment service providers to make sure that the 2017 Payment Services Regulations are followed (Pazarbasioglu et al., 2020). This entails being aware of and carrying out within their organizations the regulatory requirements. Thus, in this instance, the Claimant has been perceived as a stakeholder in the Respondent's company as well as a co-director alongside his brother. The brothers received a monthly wage from the Respondent, a small family-run business. The ET established that the salary was not paid at the brothers' request, instead being paid on the company's accountants' recommendation for tax purposes. Wage slips showing income tax and national insurance deductions have been provided by the employer, although no further paperwork indicating a job or worker relationship has been found as present in the societies (Pazarbasioglu et al., 2020).
However, in the case of the “Hope v British Medical Association”, it has been perceived that the Employment Appeal Tribunal ("EAT") took into account the grievance proceedings' lawful objective as well as the applicability of the norm of gross misconduct in determining whether a dismissal was justifiable (Lexisnexis.co.uk., 2022). It affirmed the Employment Tribunal's ("ET") ruling that the Claimant had not been fired unfairly (Lexisnexis.co.uk., 2022). The Employment Tribunal determined that one specific coworker that beginning to feel intimidated by the Claimant's actions to become the target of the complaints (Nath and Lockwood., 2022). The Claimant refused to appear at a formal grievance meeting regarding the complaints he had made, and the meeting chair determined that his behavior had been found as "frivolous and vexatious" after informing him that continuing to use the grievance procedure in this manner could be viewed as a disciplinary issue. “The Employment Rights Act 1996” has been involved in this case and provided the key specific area that ought to be considered by the ET to resolve the cases efficiently (Lexisnexis.co.uk., 2022). A key piece of legislation in the UK that defines the rights and protections of employees is the Employment Rights Act. The legal foundation for figuring out whether a dismissal has been perceived as fair or discriminatory is provided by the “Employment Rights Act of 1996”. The grounds for a fair dismissal are outlined in Section 94 of the Act though the grounds for an unjust dismissal have been provided in detail in Section 98 (Lexisnexis.co.uk., 2022). Hence, the ET must take into account whether the employer's decision to fire the employee is reasonable under the circumstances, in accordance with Section 98(4) of the “Employment Rights Act 1996” (Lexisnexis.co.uk., 2022). The issue of concerning involved a summary termination without notice is legal or constitutes a violation of contract is related to gross misconduct that has been perceived as a different contractual notion. However, this idea is not relevant to the outcome of an unfair dismissal lawsuit. Employers will have to weigh this choice against the “ACAS Code of Practise”, which states that firing an employee without giving them a chance to explain themselves will usually be unfair unless the employee has engaged in serious misconduct and their actions have a bearing on whether or not the ERA is applied fairly.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it has been stated that the idea of "mutuality of obligations" states that there are obligations in a working relationship between the employer and the employee. This study has presented several viewpoints regarding the "mutuality of obligations" within the framework of the UK legislative system, taking into account a wider context. Furthermore, that means representing the employee has been required to finish the work and follow instructions from the employer, and the employer must provide the work and compensation. A critical understanding of the many employment regulations in the UK has been included in the study, along with a suitable variety of case studies and viewpoints that have been analyzed in this assessment. Arguments about legislative frameworks and case law have been represented in the breakdown with appropriate assortments of the assessment. Moreover, different case laws have been highlighted in the context of representing the relationship between the employer and employee in the UK.
References
Adams-Prassl, J. (2023). Uber BV v Aslam: ‘[W]ork relations … cannot safely be left to contractual regulation’. Industrial Law Journal, 51(4). doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwac027.
Amjad, F., Abbas, W., Zia-UR-Rehman, M., Baig, S.A., Hashim, M., Khan, A. and Rehman, H. - (2021). Effect of green human resource management practices on organizational sustainability: the mediating role of environmental and employee performance. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(2). doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11307-9.
Atkinson, J. (2022). Zero-hours contracts and English employment Law: Developments and possibilities. European Labour Law Journal, 13(3), p.203195252211041. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221104165.
Bailii.org. (2022). Parr v MSR Partners LLP & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 24 (14 January 2022). [online] Available at: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2022/24.html [Accessed 9 Nov. 2023].
Bengtsson, L. (2019). Age stereotyping: a legal and fieldwork analysis. International Journal of Law and Management, 61(3/4), pp.485–504. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/ijlma-12-2017-0296.
Bunbury, S. (2019). Unconscious Bias and the Medical Model: How the Social Model May Hold the Key to Transformative Thinking about Disability Discrimination. International Journal of Discrimination and the Law, 19(1), pp.26–47. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1358229118820742.
Citation.co.uk (2021). UK Employment Laws Explained. [online] Citation. Available at: https://www.citation.co.uk/news/hr-and-employment-law/uk-employment-laws-explained/ [Accessed 9 Nov. 2023].
Deakin, S. (2020). Decoding Employment Status. King’s Law Journal, 31(2), pp.180–193. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2020.1789432.
Fredman, S. and Du Toit, D. (2019). One Small Step Towards Decent Work: Uber v Aslam in the Court of Appeal. [online] academic.oup.com. Available at: https://academic.oup.com/ilj/article-abstract/48/2/260/5492688 [Accessed 9 Nov. 2023].
Gov.uk., (2021). Bradley Rainford v Dorset Aquatics Ltd: EA-2020-000123-BA (previously UKEATPA/0126/20/BA). Available from https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/bradley-rainford-v-dorset-aquatics-ltd-ea-2020-000123-ba-previously-ukeatpa-slash-0126-slash-20-slash-ba. Accessed on 09.11.2023
Hand, J. and Hooton, V. (2023). Equal Pay and the Equality Act 2010: An Accidental Paradox in Need of Change? The Liverpool Law Review. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-023-09339-5.
Ilo.org (2021). Ramifications of the UK Supreme Court judgment in Uber B V v. Aslam and Others. [online] Available at: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_dialogue/---act_emp/documents/newsitem/wcms_814852.pdf [Accessed 9 Nov. 2023].
Legislation.gov.uk (2023). Employment Rights Act 1996. [online] Legislation.gov.uk. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/contents.
Legislation.gov.uk., (2017). The Payment Services Regulations 2017. Available from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/752/contents/made. Accessed on 09.11.2023
Legislation.gov.uk., (2023). Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Available from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/37/contents. Accessed on 09.11.2023
Lexisnexis.co.uk., (2022). Employment Rights Act 1996 (1996 c 18). Available from https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/legislation/uk-parliament-acts/employment-rights-act-1996-c18#:~:text=legislation%20over%20time.-,Employment%20Rights%20Act%201996%20(1996%20c%2018),working%20and%20termination%20of%20employment. Accessed on 09.11.2023
Michaels, D. and Wagner, G.R., 2020. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and worker safety during the COVID-19 pandemic.Jama,324(14), pp.1389-1390. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2770890
Motson, F. (2021). Impractical Jokers: Employers’ Liability for ‘Horseplay’. Professional Negligence, [online] 37(2), pp.73–84. Available at: https://oro.open.ac.uk/78190/ [Accessed 9 Nov. 2023].
Nath, V. and Lockwood, G., 2022. Implications of the UK Equality Law for tele-homeworking: COVID-19 and beyond.International Journal of Law and Management,64(2), pp.253-272. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJLMA-07-2021-0183/full/html
Pazarbasioglu, C., Mora, A., Uttamchandani, M., Natarajan, H., Feyen, E. and Saal, M. (2020). DIGITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES April 2020. [online] Available at: http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/230281588169110691/Digital-Financial-Services.pdf.
Treasury, H.M. (2021). UK regulatory approach to cryptoassets and stablecoins: Consultation and call for evidence. [online] Available at: https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/277747/1/UKEcon_105.pdf.
