Employment law - 4 case study questions Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3500 words

role law - 4 case study questions - Essay ExampleOne of the new terms that the ships company was introducing was to require the employees to carry out such overtime as may be required by the company. Question 1 Facts Nigel is one of the employees affected by the new terms and conditions. He is a service engineer who has been doing some overtime work in his own volition for the benefit of the company. moreover upon the requirement to make overtime functional an obligation, Nigel has refused to do any further overtime stating that the long working hours are having a detrimental to his health and family life. He further claims that he never signed a contract agreeing to do interminable overtime. He has consistently and expressly made it clear over the give out few months that he was working a limited amount of overtime and was not supporting the unlimited provision the company was introducing. He simply agreed to the limited overtime for the benefit of the company and he never at any particular moment felt obliged to do it. The company is considering victorious disciplinary action against Nigel, with his manager threatening to suspend him without pay until he agrees to resume overtime working. furrow First, the company has a right to compel obedience from its employees. It is the employees duty to cooperate with his employer and to obey the instructions prone and, most importantly, not to impede the employers business (Ullman, 2003). The company can initiate the disciplinary growth and even dismiss Nigel on grounds of insubordination. Macari v Celtic FC ct of session 1999 IRLR 788 provided some efficacious insights when it directed that if the employer breaches the duty of trust and confidence, yet the employee refuses to leave, then the employee should not disregard employers lawful instructions. Nigel was inform in advance and in writing on the intended order of terms. Nigel never left, even though he showed his disagreement with the new terms obli gating him to work overtime as and when required. Due to his decision to hold up the company takes that as an implied communication of acceptance of the new terms and conditions. It expects Nigel to adhere to them, failure to which will hold up to his suspension and or dismissal pursuant to the provisions of the disciplinary process (Moffat, 2011). The companys revision of the written particulars was made within the legal framework and therefore, legal and binding if signed. According to ss.1-7 Employment Rights forge 1998, the employer should provide the written particulars of employment within the first two months after the commencement of employment. If it is a go along employee, like in this case, it should not be later than a month after the change has been realised (Craig, 2008). Again, s. 4 of the Employment Rights Act provides that if such changes are made, then the employees should be informed of the same personally and in writing the company did so. The company, howev er, faces tough odds because of the arguments or the courses of action available to Nigel. Nigel claims that working overtime has been detrimental to his health and family life. Employers are generally required under the European Convention for the protection of human beings Rights and fundamental freedoms (EHCR) to respect the employees right to private life and family life under article 8 (Craig, 2008). The EAT 2 also provides that the employer shall take reasonable measures, as is reasonably practicable, to take care of his employee