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

Employment law - 4 case study questions - Essay Example One of the new terms that the 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. But upon the requirement to make overtime working 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 unlimited overtime. He has consistently and expressly made it clear over the last 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. T he company is considering taking disciplinary action against Nigel, with his manager threatening to suspend him without pay until he agrees to resume overtime working. Argument 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 given and, most importantly, not to impede the employer’s business (Ullman, 2003). The company can initiate the disciplinary process and even dismiss Nigel on grounds of insubordination. Macari v Celtic FC ct of session [1999] IRLR 788 provided some useful 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 employer’s lawful instructions. Nigel was informed in advance and in writing on the intended revision of terms. Nigel never left, even though he showed his disagreement with the new terms obligating him to work overtime a s and when required. Due to his decision to stay 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 lead to his suspension and or dismissal pursuant to the provisions of the disciplinary process (Moffat, 2011). The company’s 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 Act 1998, the employer should provide the written particulars of employment within the first two months after the commencement of employment. If it is a continuing employee, like in this case, it should not be later than a month after the change has been effected (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, however, 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 Rights and fundamental freedoms (EHCR) to respect the employee’s 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’