EMPLOYMENT LAW
Answer ONE question from SECTION A
And
Answer ONE question from SECTION B
Illustrate your answers by reference to relevant legislation and/or decided cases wherever appropriate.
ALL questions are worth EQUAL marks.
The word limit is 1500 words per question. You must not exceed the specified word limit. This is a maximum word limit (+10% does not apply). Markers will be instructed that they do not have to mark anything beyond the word limit.
You will not be penalised for answers that are shorter than the limit; answers will be given credit for being comprehensive, rather than for being a certain length.
You should provide a bibliography with each essay answer. The bibliography is excluded from the word count. Please include the word count for each essay answer.
The use of electronic calculators is not permitted.
Answer ONE question from SECTION A
And
Answer ONE question from SECTION B
SECTION A (seen)
Answer ONE question; all questions are worth 50 marks.
- Compare and contrast the key concepts of ‘Direct’ and ‘Indirect’ discrimination contained in the Equality Act 2010.
(50 marks)
- ‘The common law has developed a number of tests for distinguishing those who have a contract of employment from those who are self-employed. It is important not to see these tests as mutually exclusive, but rather developments in the law as a result of the courts being faced with an increasingly complex workplace and a greater variety of work situations.’ (Sargeant & Lewis, 2017)
To what extent have the courts developed and applied a coherent set of principles and approach over time to determining the question of whether an individual is or was an ‘employee’ under a contract of employment?
(50 marks)
- Under what conditions can the 48 hours maximum ceiling on weekly working time rule contained in the Working Time Regulations 1998, Reg. 4, be ‘opted- out’?
Why has the ‘opting-out’ clause been criticised by legal scholars? And to what extent we can say that this provision belongs to the historical labour market flexibility approach and the UK ‘specialism’ towards EU law?
(50 marks)
SECTION B (unseen)
Answer ONE question; all questions are worth 50 marks.
- Simon has been employed for many years as the “personal secretary” to Mr Smith, senior manager in a world-famous MNC. The terms and conditions of Simon’s employment contract state that he may be required to undertake any tasks “that are within his capabilities and appropriate to his post”. Due to increased workload, Simon has been asked to take on some further secretarial duties for two other senior managers, and to cover the front desk duties every other Saturday morning.
Simon has refused to take on the extra duties, arguing that these duties are outside the scope of his contract. During one heated debate about the matter with Mr Smith, he banged his fist on the desk and shouted abusively at him in full view of the other staff, and Simon burst into tears, getting out of the office and shouting ‘I’ll leave’.
Outline the potential legal and practical issues arising from this situation.
(50 marks)
- Because of the reduction of orders from clients, Ugo Demolishers Ltd has decided to impose a 4% reduction in pay of all its employees working at its Salford plant. Jeff Buckley is one of the employees at Salford and receives a letter on 3rd May from the company which states that his pay will be reduced by 4% with effect from the 3rd September. His written contract of employment provides that he is entitled to 12 weeks’ prior notice of termination. The Employee is unhappy about the proposed diminution in his salary and has heard from fellow workers at the plant that employees may respond by choosing several available options. He is unsure as to what those options are and so he seeks advice. How would you advise Jeff on the options that he has available to respond to the company’s variation of contract terms?
(50 marks)
PTO
- Alex Turner was employed as a senior accounts officer by Circus Bank plc for some 12 years based primarily at its Strand Branch, although he worked one Wednesday a month at a nearby Branch in Highbury and Islington. He had hitherto been regarded as an excellent member of staff and had an unblemished work record.
In the course of December 2016, two debit cards due to be collected by customers from the Strand Branch and one from the Highbury and Islington Branch were used fraudulently to obtain some relatively low-value goods by deception. At around the same time, a bank employee made unauthorised inquiries through the bank’s internal computer system about the status of each of the three customers’ accounts to which the debit cards related. These inquiries coincided with the fraudulent use of the cards. Mr Turner was in the relevant branches when the cards might have been misused and he was the only member of the staff who was at the respective branches when the inquiries into the customer accounts were made.
In mid-January 2017, Mr Turner was arrested by the Police about these incidents but was released without charge. He was nevertheless suspended by the Bank on full pay pending further investigations. On 21 February 2017, an investigation report by one of the Bank’s security officers reported that the evidence indicated that Mr Turner might have been involved in the thefts, although the latter consistently denied both taking the cards or making any unauthorised computer inquiries on customer accounts.
On 24 March 2017, a disciplinary hearing was held by the area manager, Mr Bobby Moore. Mr Turner was represented by a Banking Union official. At the end of the hearing, Mr Moore concluded that Mr Turner was on balance ‘probably guilty’ of the fraudulent misuse of the cards and that trust between him and the Bank had irretrievably broken down. Mr Turner was summarily dismissed. He appealed internally, but did not proceed with it and the appeal was dismissed in his absence.
Advise Mr Turner as to whether he could make a statutory unfair dismissal claim and its likelihood of success. Consider in particular the approach that would be taken today by an Employment Tribunal to the question of whether the dismissal was ‘fair’ or ‘unfair’ under s.98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
(50 marks)
Place your order now for a similar paper and have exceptional work written by our team of experts to guarantee you A Results
Why Choose US:
11+ years experience on custom writing
90% Return Client
Urgent 3 Hrs Delivery
Your Privacy Guaranteed
Unlimited Free Revisions
Money Back Guarantee