Employment Law Cases

Employment Law CasesEmployment Law.Jack As a familiar rule the TUPE Regulations 1981 enable a contract of conflict of an employee to be transferred over to the buyer of a business in the event of a multifariousness from one employer to another means that the new employer must preserve the regulations of the old employer. However an important limitation on the scope of these regulations is the exclusion of changes of control in a eccentricnership through share purchase. This is because the identity of the employer does not change the employer is the same company as before, even though there has been a change of controlling interest. This means that Jack back endnot refuse to cream for the company on account of the change of control and neither can Jack as a trade union member enforce the TUPE regulations in relation to the employers duty to inform and consult with the representatives of the workforce.Sophie It is assumed that Sophies complaint relates to the fact that Claudio is a man whom is doing a similar job to hers and being paid more and therefore she will be considering bring an action under the Equal return present 1970. Under this act Sophie, as a female applicant is allowed to compare her terms and condition with those of a man in the same economic consumption who is employed either like work, work rated as equivalent or work of equal value to hers. This means that Claudio must be employed by the same employer which we know to be true and that he must be shown to be employed in employment which has common terms and conditions of employment broadly to the work that Sophie does. Whether or not this is considered to be the case will depend very much(prenominal) on the types of arrangements that are in place at that item place of employment. Therefore if the employment structure indicates that management roles are to be paid once morest the same pay structure then Great National lingo will be in breach of the Equal Pay Regulations. If this is not the case then they will be not.Anthony There are essentially troika issues that Anthony has raised the first of these is that his supervisor is making inappropriate get offual remarks. This is likely to be considered harassment. In order for Anthony to show that he is being sexually chafe he must show that the he would have been treated differently but for his sex and that the harassment is a particular kind of weapon, based upon the sex of the victim, which, as the employment tribunal recognise would not have been used against an equally disliked women. Therefore if Anthony can show that these remarks amount to sexual harassment then he will be able to bring a claim at the employment tribunal.The second issue is that Anthony objects to the amount of his salary. There is infinitesimal that Anthony can do about this as he is only sixteen he will not be covered by the National nominal Wages Act 1998 which sets a minimum salary that is payable to staff in certain age group s, and Anthony being under the age of 18 can do little to rectify this situation, other than address it with his manager and see if they are prepared to raise his salary or he can try out employment else where.The third issue is that Anthony has injured his back as a result of lifting heavy boxes. Great National Bank owe Anthony a general duty of care with regard to his off the hook(predicate)ty. That duty is four fold and they must provide competent fellow workers, safe materials, a safe place to work and a proper system of work. Great National Bank also have a statutory duty to ensure the health, safety and welfare of persons at work, protection other persons against risks to health and safety arising from work-related activities, and controlling the use of dangerous substances. Therefore if Great National Bank are not providing a safe system of work or are in breach of their general duty of care with regard to Anthonys health and safety then Anthony may have an action against them for his injuriesFrancesca Whether or not Francesca consults the agency or Great National Bank in relation to her request for leave depends very much on whether she is considered to be an employee or not. The Employment Rights Act 1996 defines an employee as an individual who has entered into or works under. A contract of employment and contract of employment is defined, in turn, to mean a contract of service or apprenticeship whether express or implied, and (if it is express) whether oral or in writing. In consideration of this statue it would appear that Francesca is not an employee as she has a contract for service and not a contract of service.However under income taxation and social security legislation Francesca is an employee as the company pay for her, her national insurance and income tax. In support of this argument is the integration test that is often applied to such instances and that is to say one feature which seems to me to stand through the instances is that, u nder a contract of service, a man is employed as part of the business and his work is done as an integral part of the business whereas under a contract for services his work, although done for the business is not integrated into it but is only accessory to it. On this analysis again it would seem that Francesca is an employee of Great National Bank, and therefore it would be concluded that she would have to approach them to enquire about her leave. Ultimately however the decision will be one of fact and law for the tribunal to decide.Bibliography Legislation Employment Rights Act 1996Equal Pay Act 1970.Health and Safety at Work Act 1974National Minimum Wages Act 1998Sex Discrimination Act 1975TUPE Regulations 1981Cases Brookes v Borough Care Services Ltd and CLS Care Services Ltd 1998 IRLR 636Leverton v Clywd County Council 1989 IRLR 28Nokes v Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd 1940 AC 1014Porcelli v Strathclyde Regional Council 1986 IRLR 134SI (Systems and Instrumentation) Ltd v Grist 1983 IRLR 391Stevenson, Jordan Harrison v MacDonald Evans 1952 1 TLR 101Wilsons Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English 1938 AC 57Books Blackstones Statutes on Employment Law 2004-2005, 14th EditionDeakin S Morris G, (2001) Labour Law , Third Edition, Lexis Nexis Butterworths