This report mainly addresses the legal implications encompassing the university's decision regarding the reduction of Dr. Obisanya's contract and the potential for constructive dismissal claims. Dr Obisanya is a history lecturer who was initially employed on a fixed-term contract. He has served the university for more than six years as well. Recent actions by the “Senior Management Board’s (SMB)” Professor Cahalane's remarks and contract reduction have raised concerns concerning compliance with employment laws. The discussion will focus on the legal framework governing fixed-term contracts in England and Wales which also includes the “Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002”. Also, it will examine the concept of constructive dismissal and its application to Dr Obisanya's situation. This report aims to furnish the SMB with knowledge of the potential legal ramifications of their actions and recommendations to mitigate any risks.
Looking for top-quality assignment assistance? Hire a team of the best Native Assignment Helpers who are dedicated to delivering exceptional work tailored to your needs. Whether it’s for Nursing, HR, Marketing, or any other subject, our experts ensure timely and accurate solutions.
Discussion
Fixed Term Contracts
Legal Framework
Fixed-term Contracts are mainly employment agreements with a predetermined time duration. It is also administered by the “Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002” and its resulting revision in the year 2008. These regulations intend to forestall the victimization of fixed-term employees by guaranteeing that they get equivalent treatment contrasted with the main long-lasting employees unless different treatment can be dispassionately legitimate.
The “Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Ideal Treatment) Regulations 2002” mainly characterize fixed-term employees as people employed under a contract who have a specific time duration, terminate all the occurrences of the specific events, and complete the specific tasks of the events.
As per the Regulations, fixed-term employees are not to be dealt with less well than practically identical extremely durable employees in terms of employment conditions. Unless the different treatment is legitimate on genuine grounds. Employment conditions also incorporate compensation, benefits, working hours, preparation opportunities, and admittance to extremely durable employment opportunities.
These regulations additionally preclude the utilization of progressive fixed-term contracts to bypass the freedoms of employees. Fixed-term employees might be qualified for similar freedoms and advantages as long-lasting employees after a specific time of nonstop employment. Unless the business can exhibit objective defence for various treatments.
The regulations also expect managers to give fixed-term employees data about long-lasting employment openings, preparing opportunities, and different advantages to guarantee they have equivalent admittance to professional improvement and gain good opportunities.
The legal framework mainly encompassing fixed-term contracts mainly aims to secure the freedoms of employees by forestalling less good treatment and guaranteeing equivalent opportunities for professional movement. Compliance with these regulations is fundamental for businesses to stay away from potential legal claims for segregation or unfair treatment.
Status of Dr Obisanya’s Employement
Dr Obisanya's employment status mainly depends on the application of the legal framework governing fixed-term contracts in the UK. His prolonged term of over six years brings up issues seeing his characterization as a fixed-term or extremely durable representative while initially recruited on a fixed-term contract.
In the case of “Rolls Royce plc vs Unite the Union”, the “Court of Employment” mainly underlined the duration of employment by assuming it reaches out past a progression of fixed-term contracts. It could also prompt the surmising that a representative has accomplished extremely durable status. This was evident when the court decided that a progression of fixed-term contracts couldn't circumvent the freedoms of employees. It was particularly when the work provided was continuous.
Also, in the case of “Bangura vs Southern Cross Healthcare”, the “Council of Employment” mainly found that an employee in a fixed-term contract for over 4 years was also qualified for good stable status which gave more insights into employment and the missing of objective justification for the fixed-term nature of the contracts inside the employment process.
It is very questionable that Dr Obisanya's employment has progressed into a de facto permanent arrangement applying these points of reference to his situation. The consistent augmentation of his employment without objective support for the fixed-term nature always proposes that he might be qualified for similar privileges and advantages as long-lasting employees regardless of the initial factors of the fixed-term contracts.
Also, the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favorable Treatment) Regulations 2002 mainly specify that fixed-term employees who served at least 4 years in the firm might be considered extremely enduring unless some objectives occurred against the fixed-term nature of their employment.
It is also evident that Dr Obisanya has coordinated himself as a valuable member of the academic community by taking into account his commitments to the university including his showing honours and academic distributions. The university proceeded with dependence on fixed-term contracts without defence might contravene the regulations and open them to potential legal difficulties.
Finally, Dr Obisanya's prolonged-term and commitments warrant a reassessment of his employment status. The university ought to critically think about his qualification for super stable status and guarantee compliance with the legal framework governing fixed-term contracts to mitigate the risk of legal claims.
Constructive Dismissal
Explanation of the Legal Requirements
Constructive dismissal mainly refers to a situation where an employee resigns from their position due to the employer's behaviour which breaks the terms of the employment contract. This condition leaves the employee with no choice except to resign from his post. It is crucial to note that constructive dismissal doesn't involve a direct termination by the employer but rather a resignation initiated by the employee in response to intolerable working conditions created by the employer.
In the case of “Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd vs Sharp”, the “Court of Appeal” laid out the test for constructive dismissal. It mainly expressed that for a case of constructive dismissal to succeed, the employee should exhibit that the employer has committed a serious break of the employment contract which goes to the foundation of the contract. Also, the employee has resigned in response to the break. And if, the employee has not acted in a manner that certifies the contract after the break happened.
This case properly delineates the significance of the break being adequately serious to legitimize the employee's resignation. The break should be basic and go to the centre of the employment relationship like a huge change in obligations, downgrade, badgering, or an essential break of trust and certainty.
Also, in the case of “Shamoon vs Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary”, the “House of Lords” stressed that the test for constructive dismissal is objective. It mainly focuses on whether a sensible individual in the employee's position would believe the employer's conduct to be unbearable to such an extent that they are legitimate in resigning.
The situation of Dr Obisanya's constructive dismissal would happen if the actions of his senior boss Professor Cahalane add up to a serious break of his employment contract which drove him to the path of resigning. The evaluation would involve thinking about whether the actions taken by the university were adequately serious to legitimize Dr Obisanya's resignation and whether he depleted all interior cures before resigning.
Analysis of Dr Obisanya's Situation
It is vital to evaluate whether the actions of Professor Cahalane of the university comprise a serious break from his employment contract, prompting his resignation in dissecting Dr Obisanya's situation for potential constructive dismissal.
Professor Cahalane's slanderous comments naming Dr Obisanya as the "ringleader of the boycott" and scrutinizing the insight of his involvement in union activities could be understood as a damaging act of Dr Obisanya's position inside the university. This behaviour might comprise a break of the suggested term of trust and trust in the employment contract. In the case of “Malik vs Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA”, the “Court of Appeal” held that disparaging comments made by an employer towards an employee could add up to a break of trust and certainty which consequently potentially prompts constructive dismissal.
Professor Cahalane's ensuing actions of preventing Dr Obisanya from taking part in staff preparing activities and proposing to reduce his contract to one day of the week further complicate the situation. These actions might be viewed as a one-sided change to the terms of Dr Obisanya's employment contract without legitimate support or meeting. It also potentially comprises a major break of the employment contract. In the case of “Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd vs Sharp”, the “Court of Appeal” underscored that any one-sided change to fundamental terms of employment without appropriate defence could add up to constructive dismissal.
The timing of these actions, happening soon after Dr Obisanya's contribution to the union's marking boycott raises suspicions of victimization or retaliation. In the case of “Barnett vs Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee”, the “Employment Appeal Tribunal” held that victimization of an employee for practising their rights like participating in trade union activities. It could also constitute a break of the employment contract and lead to a case for constructive dismissal.
It is also justified to argue that Dr Obisanya might have felt compelled to resign due to the intolerable working conditions made by the university's conduct considering the cumulative impact of these actions. The actions taken by Professor Cahalane and the university could be viewed as sufficiently serious breaches of Dr Obisanya's employment contract which mainly justifies his resignation.
There are many grounds to argue that Dr Obisanya might have been constructively dismissed by the university because of the analysis of his situation and relevant case law. The actions of Professor Cahalane and the university's failure to address Dr Obisanya's interests satisfactorily could open them to legitimate risk for constructive dismissal. The university really should cautiously reevaluate its treatment of Dr Obisanya and find proper ways to amend the situation to stay away from expected legitimate cases by following this way.
The accompanying recommendations are proposed for the “Senior Management Board” or “SMB” of the university:
Conduct a Review of Dr Obisanya's Employment Status: The SMB ought to conduct a careful review of Dr Obisanya's employment history and survey whether he ought to be considered a permanent employee. There might be grounds to consider him a true permanent employee qualified for similar rights and advantages as permanent staff given his prolonged tenure and commitments to the university.
Provide Justification for Contract Reduction: The University also ought to provide clear and objective justification for the proposed reduction in Dr Obisanya's contract hours. Any reduction ought to be founded on authentic functional reasons and shouldn't constitute less positive treatment contrasted with permanent employees.
Address Potential Victimization: The SMB ought to address any claims of victimization or retaliation against Dr Obisanya for his association with union activities. It is fundamental to maintain Dr Obisanya's rights to the opportunity of affiliation and guarantee that employees are not punished for practising their legitimate rights.
Consider Reinstatement of Full-Time Contract or Compensation: The university also needs to consider reestablishing Dr Obisanya’s full-time contract or giving reasonable compensation for any unfavourable impacts coming about because of the proposed contract reduction by considering the potential breaches of his employment rights. This will assist with relieving any financial problems and guarantee fair treatment to their employees.
The university can exhibit its obligation to fair and evenhanded treatment of employees while relieving the risk of legitimate cases emerging from potential breaches of employment law by following these vital recommendations. It is very fundamental for the SMB to address Dr Obisanya's main interests quickly and also guarantee consistency with legitimate commitments to keep a positive and productive work environment.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the analysis of Dr Obisanya’s situation mainly features potential legal concerns for the university’s activity regarding his employment contract and the risk of constructive dismissal claims. The examination of relevant laws and case law also encompassing fixed-term contracts and constructive dismissal which highlights the significance of guaranteeing fair treatment and adherence to legal obligations by the university.
It is also suggested that the Senior Management Board (SMB) reconsider Dr Obisanya's employment status which can justify any proposed changes to his contract, also address potential victimization, and then consider reinstatement or compensation where suitable. It will mitigate the risk of legal claims and maintain standards of fairness and balance in the workplace. Also, providing proper knowledge of employment law to the staff members will assist with forestalling similar issues from now on and promote a positive working environment. These all recommendations will help to create an agreeable and legally consistent workplace environment inside the University.
References
Journals
Rosin A, ‘Platform Work and Fixed-Term Employment Regulation’ [2020] European Labour Law Journal 203195252095933
Van Staden M, ‘Aantekeninge: An Update of Recent Labour Law Developments from South African Courts 2023’ (2023) 2023 Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg 696
Gundt N, ‘The Limitations of Fixed-Term Contract Regulation’ (2023) 14 European Labour Law Journal 428
Lockton DJ [1999] Employment law
Cabrelli D [2020] Employment law in context
Crawford B and Whyte D, ‘Working for Climate Justice: Trade Unions in the Front Line against Climate Change’ [2024] SSRN Electronic Journal
Wren D and Ridley-Duff R, ‘Ontologies of Employee Ownership: A Comparative Analysis of Trust-Owned, Directly-Owned and Cooperatively-Owned Enterprises’ (2021) 10 The Journal of Entrepreneurial and Organizational Diversity 48
Collins PM, ‘Finding Fault in the Law of Unfair Dismissal: The Insubstantiality of Reasons for Dismissal’ (2021) 51 Industrial Law Journal 598
Ishak AK, Razak HA and Jamaludin N, ‘Keeping Public Servants’ Mental Health Intact during and Post Covid-19 Pandemic through the Islamic Mental Health Model’ [2021] Modeling Economic Growth in Contemporary Malaysia 201
Adejugbe A and Adejugbe A, ‘The Philosophy of Unfair Dismissal Law in Nigeria’ [2020] SSRN Electronic Journal
‘Legal Implications of Covid-19 on the Employers’ Duty to Provide a Safe Work Environment.’ [2020] Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization
Racabi G, ‘Abolish the Employer Prerogative, Unleash Work Law’ [2021] SSRN Electronic Journal
9+ Years | Masters 
