Employment Law
...em and therefore has no unfair dismissal rights. 3. Terry has rights under the Fixed-Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulation 2002 that came into force on the 1st October 2002. The regulation states that such workers have the right not to be discriminated against compared to permanent employees. This includes the right to receive training. A suitable comparator must be found in the same organisation that does similar or broadly similar work in order to prove the case. Terry as a fixed term worker is entitled to the same level of pay or other benefits as is reasonable when considering the length of the contract of employment. As Terry is on a 3 year contract, a considerable amount of time, he should be entitled to the same benefits as permanent workers. Sandcem should be aware that Terry can request a written statement requesting reasons for any less favourable treatment and a reply must be provided within a 21 day period. It is strongly advisable to provide this statement as if the case is heard at an employment tribunal and it is proved that it was deliberately omitted the tribunal may assume that the employer has infringed the right in question. Sandcem should be aware that Terry must not suffer any detriment in accordance with the regulation. The claim must be brought within 3 months; however, this is not a strict requirement. If the tribunal find in favour of Terry, which is likely then it may award damages and recommend Sandcem provide Terry with the opportunity to receive training and the benefit of an interest free loans for the purchase of a car. 4. The Employment Rights Act 2002 provides an employee the right to request flexible working arrangements. This is further to the insertion of Section 80F into the Employment Rights Act 1996. An application must be made by Julia regarding the hours she works. It must have been made for the care of her child before the 14th day before her child reaches the age of 6. Julia's request must also have specified when she would like to begin working less hours and how the change would be effective. Sandcem should have then arranged a meeting with Julia to discuss the matter further and provide her with a right of appeal. Sandcem need to be aware that there are certain circumstances in which a request may be refused including; the burden of extra costs, the inability to meet customer demand, inability to re-organise work amongst existing staff, detrimental effect on performance, and lack of work during periods when Julia proposes to work and the planned structural changes. The procedure must be complied with; if the request is refused for any other reasons than stated above they will have to present the case at an employment tribunal, who will have the power to make Sandcem reconsider their decision, or award damages to Julia. Disputes may also be dealt with by the ACAS arbitration scheme. New rules will come into force on flexible working in 2003 (Flexible Working (Eligibility, Complaints and Remedies) Regulations) increasing the onus on the employer to provide flexible hours for parents of young children. SECTION B Tina should be aware that she has suffered sexual harassment. That has been defined by the European Commission’s Code of Practice as, 'Unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, or other conduct based on sex affecting the dignity of men and women at work. This can include unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct.' Thus if a person suffers sexual harassment this amounts to treating a person less favourably on the grounds of sex (S(1)a Sexual Discrimination Act 1997 SDA). In the case of Porcelli v Strathclyde Regional Council, Mrs Porcelli claimed that two males were sexually harassing her by deliberately brushing against her. It was held that she had been discriminated against and suffered detrimental treatment of a sexual nature that a man would not have been vulnerable to. After the first incident occurred in the car Tina did make a complaint to Sally, however, when Larry was confronted by Sally he denied the claims. Larry and Tina then travelled alone together once more, this should not have happened without a full investigation having taking place. Tina's employers and Sally have been negligent. They have broken the duty of care owed to her as employers have a duty to protect their employees. If an employer has reason to believe that sexual harassment is taking place they must investigate the matter properly, even if a formal complaint has not been made. If this is not done it amounts to a breach of the implied terms of trust and confidence (Reed and Bull Information Systems v Stedman). It is advisable to refuse to travel to the International Sports Exhibition next month unless she is provided with a chaperone (BT Plc v Williams, 1997). It may be possible to sue the company for Larry's actions under vicarious liability. The company is a better target as it is more likely that they will be able to pay any awarded damages, as they have more money. It may also be possible to sue Sally for breaking the du...