Introduction

Employment is crucial in ensuring that human needs are addressed. Employment refers to any connection between two people or an individual and a company that governs labour performance for a fee paid by the person or company who benefits from the job. In an employment relationship, employment rules preserve the working connection between the parties involved and control all actions resulting from the relationship. They primarily serves to safeguard both parties engaged in employment contracts.[1] Any breach of the employment contract can result in legal or disciplinary action, as agreed upon before the employment agreement.

Governments in various nations prefer to create and adopt legislation to promote justice and equality. Some of these laws ensure that no employee is subjected to discrimination while on the job. However, employment regulations are not only intended to protect both employees but also employers. For the purpose of this paper, Fair Price Limited appears to have broken specific labour regulations in the scenario presented. Thomas, Zainab, Chloe, Philip, James, and Fariha face some unfair and discriminatory decisions at work and seek advice. As a result, this study looks at how employment rules apply to their scenario and what actions they can take. In this regard, using evidence from relevant materials, the paper will seek to present any employment rights that protect the victims’ rights in their unique situations. However, to provide appropriate recommendations, this paper first introduces the subject of employment law comprehensively.  

Employment Laws

Employment is heavily controlled by many laws and rights that protect businesses’ and employees’ interests. Employment laws deal with the regulations that guarantee that the employer and the employees have a consistent connection. Such partnerships are said to be based on standard contractual arrangements, in which people have an offer from one side of the partner and an acceptance letter from the other person involved. The majority of recent work-related conflicts, on the other hand, have been decided in favour of employees. 

The UK government has been forced to revise employment act laws and regulations to protect both employer’s and employees’ interests in the workplace as a result of employment disputes and consequent job status. Labor movements have also been at the forefront of pressuring the state and companies to raise minimum salaries and improve working conditions. The Employment Relations Act of 1999 mandates that trade unions be recognised at work and guides industrial activities.[2] Furthermore, the International Labor Organization (ILO) has established guiding principles and standards to which governments must adhere and support through employment legislation.  

The United Kingdom (UK) has enacted legislation such as the Employees Agency Act, which outlines how workers should be treated regarding minimum salaries, benefits, and other considerations similar to their full-time counterparts. Various laws have also been enacted to safeguard the rights of both employers and workers in a working relationship. The Employment Rights Act of 1996, for example, protects employees in instances such as unjust dismissal, maternity and paternity leave, and redundancy lawsuits.[3] Employees are also protected by the Equality Act 2010 from discrimination based on race, national origin, age, or gender. While these are some of the issues affecting Thomas, Zainab, Chloe, Philip, James, and Fariha, a comprehensive overview of the employment laws protect employees’ rights.

Case Study Analysis

Thomas Case

According to the case study, Thomas worked for FPL as a delivery driver on a part-time basis. Unfortunately, he was involved in a catastrophic car accident one day while driving, resulting in a severe spinal cord injury that rendered him wheelchair-bound and forced him to take time off work. Uninformed of Thomas’s condition, FPL wrote to Thomas that his contributions to the company were no longer required due to his extended absence. However, Thomas feels that the decision was unfair and wonders whether he can be entitled to a discrimination claim.

After a workplace accident, an employee cannot be dismissed because they have failed to report to work for a certain period without following the correct procedures. It is illegal to dismiss an employee in the United Kingdom while ignoring the legal frameworks implemented to carry out the procedure. If particular qualifications are met, a worker may be eligible for valid dismissal for sickness absence if they are on long-term sick leave or have a regular time off work due to illness. Before terminating an employee, the Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974 mandates organisations to determine if the person is more at risk of accidents, disease, or impairment when they return to work following a sickness absence.[4] Furthermore, the Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Regulations) and the Employment Rights Act 1996 compel companies to follow proper processes and conduct investigations before dismissing an employee due to illness.[5]

Furthermore, the Disability Discrimination Act and the Equality Act 2010 compel companies to evaluate whether employees have been discriminated against or treated less favourably because of their disability than workers who do not have a disability.[6] Although Thomas neglected to notify the firm about his predicament, the company failed to follow legal procedures to dismiss him and treat him equitably and without discrimination throughout the process. Employers can terminate a worker who has been sick for a long time, but they must first determine if the person can resume work in some form, such as operating flexibly or part-time or embarking on a different or less stressful job.[7] The company did not investigate to determine the reason behind Thomas’s failure to report to work. Employees must also be questioned about their ability to return to work and if their well-being will progress. As a result, Thomas’s dismissal may be regarded as unjust and illegal because the FPL failed to establish solid grounds to support his employee’s contract termination. Thus, he may be able to bring a discrimination complaint against the company and seek compensation.

Zainab Case

According to this case, Zainab’s productivity was hampered by pregnancy symptoms. After learning of her poor performance, FPL fired her without providing her advance notice, despite being aware that she was pregnant. Even though Zainab was dismissed due to poor performance, the company handled the dismissal using the incorrect procedure. The UK employee law dictates that if the reason for the dismissal is linked with employee-specific rights, it is said to be automatic unfair dismissal. According to the Employment Rights Act 1996, an employer can not dismiss employees without an acceptable reason.[8] In this case, Zainab was dismissed due to her pregnancy, which affected her performance; according to the UK employee laws, the dismissal can thus be considered unfair.

Employees are frequently terminated verbally or in a letter. According to the ACAS Code of Practice, the employee should be summoned to a meeting to provide their side of the story in misconduct and performance dismissals. Additionally, to avoid any misunderstanding about the formal dismissal date, a written statement should be supplied to confirm the reason for the dismissal and the date of dismissal.[9] A right of appeal should also be guaranteed. However, if an employer respects the Code of Practice, workers have no redress. Nevertheless, if a wrongful termination complaint is granted and proof of non-compliance with the Code is shown, the court can modify the compensation award by up to 50%. This happened in the case of Freear v Vossloh Cogifer UK Ltd 1800747/2016, where a female worker was compensated over £43,000 after being mistreated and terminated owing to her pregnancy.[10] Thus, the UK employment laws require employers to guarantee that disciplinary and termination practices are conducted unbiasedly, swiftly, and correctly and that the reason for such procedures is authentic.[11] They must also ensure that workers who have notified their company that they are pregnant do not face any discrimination due to their pregnancy. 

Employers should observe the criteria set out in the Employment Rights Act of 1996 during a termination procedure. Even though each employment agreement specifies the relationship between the worker and the employer, this legislation only addresses labour law issues. According to the law, an employment agreement may be dissolved in a legal or illegal, reasonable or unreasonable way. Discriminatory factors can also be used to legitimise wrongful termination. On the other hand, possible justifications for a lawful termination include redundancy, behaviour, capability, legislative constraints, and other significant concerns.[12] However, when an employee’s statutory rights are violated, the termination is automatically deemed unjust.

In Zainab’s case, the company did not consider her statuary rights. The company thus ignored the requirements of the Employment Right Act of 1996. The company also breached the Equity Act for discriminating against Zainab due to her condition. According to the Equality Act 2010, section 18, A person (A) discriminates against a woman if, in the protected period concerning a pregnancy of hers, A treats her unfavourably because of the pregnancy or illness suffered by her as a result of it.[13] The company also failed to abide by the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999, which protect employees against detrimental (unfair) treatment or automatic unfair dismissal because of pregnancy.[14]Because Zainab’s dismissal was based on a faulty premise, she should take her case to an employment tribunal, where she might be granted up to two weeks’ extra salary as compensation. She can also petition for reinstatement. In minimal circumstances, she can move for interim measures, which implies her pay must be maintained until the formal hearing date if the tribunal approves it.

Chloe Case

Chloe is also an employee in FPL, similar to Zainab and Thomas. She has been working for the company for four years full-time. However, after realising that her colleague was receiving a salary that was $200 more than hers, she complained to her line manager. However, the manager told her that her salary had to stay due to budgetary constraints. Although the notion of equal pay for men and women in terms of compensation and conditions is straightforward, equal pay concepts have historically been complicated, and the Equality Act has done nothing to simplify equal pay difficulties. 

Nonetheless, under the Equality Act 2010, both men and women have the right to equal remuneration for equal work.[15] This Act extends to all employers, irrespective of size. However, how a company fulfils its commitment to avoid gender discrimination in pay may differ based on its scale in practice. In this case, the manager claimed that Chloe’s salary had to stay the same due to budgetary constraints to avoid sex discrimination. In both British and European Union legislation, the notion that women and men are entitled to equal pay for equal labour is enshrined.[16] Pay discrimination must be eliminated if women are to achieve gender equality and dignity. Chloe is doing the same job as Phillip, but his salary is more than hers. According to the Equality Act 2010 Code of Practice sex equality clause, a woman doing equal work with a man in the same employer is entitled to equal pay and other contractual terms unless the employer can show that there is a material reason for the difference that does not discriminate based on her sex.[17]

 Chloe is protected from wage discrimination under the Equal Pay Act since she is a woman. This is because the statute prevents businesses from compensating males with similar experiences at the same place more than females. As a result, FPL discriminates against her because the firm has no adequate explanation for the salary disparity between her and her coworker. In the United Kingdom, the equal pay law forbids discrimination in terms and conditions of employment between men and women. Historically, equal pay lawsuits were primarily filed in the public sector, but many claims have been filed against private sector companies in recent years. As a result, Chloe might think about taking her case to an employment tribunal. 

Chloe can receive equal pay awards if her equal pay claim is successful. This includes compensation for repayments of pay plus interest for up to six years and amended contract agreements, such as salary terms, so that they are equal in the future to those of a person of the opposite sex doing the same work. The company will also be required to conduct an equal pay audit by the tribunal. This entails posting relevant information regarding gender pay on the company’s website.

James Case

In this case, James is being asked to relocate to another FPL branch against his will. As a result, he turned down the offer since he had to move to a new country, secure a new house, and change to a smaller company car. Besides, even though he was offered the same position and salary, the company informed him that his services were no longer required without prior consultation. In England, an employment contract with a mobility clause permits an employer to move an employee to a different workplace if necessary. Unless deemed ‘unreasonable,’ an employer can impose a mobility provision. A mobility clause in an employment contract is a condition in the agreement that mandates the applicable worker to relocate if their employer demands it. This might be due to the closing of an office or workplace, a shift in the type of work done at a particular site, or something else entirely. An employee is required to follow a mobility provision if it is fair. Whether it is reasonable or not will rely on the conditions and the circumstances of the particular employee. However, depending on the terms of the mobility clause, the relocation conditions, and the worker’s situation, relocating may be considered reasonable.[18] If a worker refuses to relocate, they may be fired for insubordination.

On the other hand, case law has held that employers should not choose between redundancy and using a mobility provision when considering relocation. Employers must determine whether to apply a mobility clause or launch a redundancy exercise at the outset of the relocation process, which may necessitate legal guidance.[19] If James is laid off, the FPL should provide him with an appropriate alternative job. However, if he declines the offer of a suitable alternative job without justification, he can be fired for redundancy. In this case, James will not be entitled to statutory redundancy compensation. However, if his rejection is fair, he may be eligible for statutory redundancy pay provided he meets the requirements outlined in the Employment Rights Act 1996.

James’ case is identical to the Kellogg Brown & Root (UK) Ltd. Vs. Fitton and Ewer James.[20] The company relied on a standard mobility clause in employment contracts that indicated that unless inevitable circumstances prevailed, the company might necessitate the worker to workers to work in a different area, including any new office location of the company, either in the UK or abroad, on a temporary or permanent basis. Two of the company’s UK locations were shuttered, and Fitton and Ewer, who declined to work in the new location, were fired. Due to the adjustment, their commuting time would have grown by 20-30 hours per week.[21] Ultimately, the panel determined that the relocation directive was irrational and that the termination was unjust. Thus, both workers were eligible for a redundancy benefit due to this.

A transfer, such as relocating an employee abroad, may be ruled unreasonable due to financial concerns or if it would cause severe disruption to the employee’s family life. Besides, the employee should be informed about the grounds for the change in the workplace and the necessity to exercise the mobility clause.[22] Additionally, the employee must be given adequate notice of the change’s start date, and the employer must provide transitional aid, including financial assistance. Thus, the company’s ruling may be declared unreasonable since it does not meet any aforementioned criteria. However, suppose James’ contract includes a mobility provision saying that he should be able to relocate when the firm requests it. In that case, he must follow the company’s instructions and relocate to Brussels. However, since James rejected the relocation, the company may dismiss him for redundancy. If the company terminates him, he should present the case to a tribunal where he may be eligible for statutory redundancy pay provided he meets the requirements.

Philip Case

In Philips’s case, he was furious about Fariha’s appointment for promotion by FPL to the post of regional manager. Since Fariha had the same qualifications as Philips, who has worked for the company for FPL for nine years as an IT consultant, Phillips perceived it as an act of discrimination. However, according to the case study, the company conducting the promotion is in line with FPL’s diversity and inclusivity policy. 

Diversity is about accepting that everyone is unique and appreciating, respecting, and celebrating the value that differences provide.[23] On the other hand, inclusion is when diversity is valued, and viewpoints and differences are exchanged, resulting in better judgments. Equal treatment and equal opportunity are central to the UK government’s diversity and inclusion plan. Equality is about recognising that everyone is different and that people’s needs are addressed in diverse ways rather than ‘treating everyone the same.[24] It is neither just not fair to discriminate against people because of who they are nor what they believe,’ it says. Since Fariha Fariha is the sole black person on staff at FPR, the company has been executing its philosophy of inclusion and diversity.

This is in accordance with the 2010 Equality Act. The Act includes an integrated Public Sector Equality Duty, which compels all public and private organisations that provide a public service to consider the needs of protected groups when developing and delivering services. According to the statute, having appropriate attention for achieving equality entails eliminating or reducing the disadvantages individuals face due to protection. Furthermore, Section 1 of the Equality Act, the Socio-economic Duty, compels public entities to make transparent and effective efforts to alleviate disparities caused by variations in employment, education, location, or social status.[25] Consequently, FPL followed its diversity and inclusion strategy and the Equity Act of 2010. As a result, Philip cannot bring a discrimination claim against FPL and is unable to file a legal complaint to overturn the firm’s decision.

Conclusion

The situations of Zainab, Thomas, Chloe, and James were examined in this analysis to determine how FPL breached their rights protected under UK employment laws. The case of Philip is unique in that the corporation was implementing its inclusion and diversity strategy and hence did not breach any rights. Notably, the corporation violated Zainab and Thomas’ statutory rights, including discrimination and unfair dismissal, which are illegal under UK employment regulations. As a result, the two victims should claim compensation from an employment tribunal for their wrongful dismissal. On the other hand, the corporation neglected to pay Chloe the same salary as Philip, her coworker, violating the Equal Pay Act. Thus, Chloe should also take the matter to an employment tribunal to seek compensation since the company violated her rights. The corporation failed to notify him of his transfer earlier in James’ situation.

On the other hand, James’ justifications were reasonable; therefore, the corporation should consider them. However, James’ refusal to relocate should not be termed redundancy if it was not included in the employment contract’s mobility provision. Besides, if the firm fires James for redundancy due to her refusal to relocate, James should take his case to a tribunal to obtain statutory redundancy pay. Finally, the company’s actions in the Philips matter are consistent with the company’s inclusion and diversity policy and the Equity Act of 2010, indicating that Phillip is not viable for discrimination claims.

Bibliography

“Diversity and Inclusion Strategy 2019 to 2023” (GOV.UK) <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/charity-commission-diversity-and-inclusion-strategy-2019-to-2023/diversity-and-inclusion-strategy-2019-to-2023> accessed May 1, 2022 

“Employment Rights Act 1996” [2006] Electrical Installation Work Curriculum Support Pack 206 

“Equal Pay Act 1970” (1970) 8 Managerial Law 1048 

“Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Policy – Stroud.gov.uk” <https://www.stroud.gov.uk/media/1784330/equality-diversity-and-inclusion-policy-2021-25.pdf> accessed May 1, 2022 

“Five Pregnancy and Maternity Employment Tribunal Claims That Were Successful in 2017” (Redmans Solicitors) <https://redmans.co.uk/insights/five-pregnancy-and-maternity-employment-tribunal-claims-that-were-successful-in-2017/> accessed May 1, 2022 

“Main Features of Current Employment Legislation” (List of Employment Laws and Legislation UK | 2022 Law Acts) <https://www.theukrules.co.uk/rules/employment/laws-list.html> accessed May 1, 2022 

Brady A, “The Employment Relations Act (1999)” [2019] Unions and Employment in a Market Economy 106 

Fell E, “Against Discrimination: Equality Act 2010 (UK)” [2017] The European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences 

Group C, “Employer’s Guide to Mobility Clauses” (Croner) <https://croner.co.uk/resources/contracts-documentation/mobility-clause/> accessed May 1, 2022 

Madden JM, “The Health and Safety at Work ETC Act 1974” [2017] Electrical Safety and the Law 87 

Morris A, “Mobility Clause (Advice for Employers)” (DavidsonMorrisApril 12, 2020) <https://www.davidsonmorris.com/mobility-clause/> accessed May 1, 2022 

Service GD, “Dismissal: Your Rights” (GOV.UKApril 7, 2020) <https://www.gov.uk/dismissal> accessed May 1, 2022 

Service GD, “Pregnant Employees’ Rights” (GOV.UKDecember 18, 2014) <https://www.gov.uk/working-when-pregnant-your-rights> accessed May 1, 2022 

Service GD, “Taking Sick Leave” (GOV.UKFebruary 10, 2015) <https://www.gov.uk/taking-sick-leave> accessed May 1, 2022 

Taylor S and Emir A, “11. The Equality Act 2010: Key Concepts” [2019] Employment Law 212 

Wintemute R, “Goodbye EU Anti-Discrimination Law? Hello Repeal of the Equality Act 2010?” (2016) 27 King’s Law Journal 387 

[1] “Main Features of Current Employment Legislation” (List of Employment Laws and Legislation UK | 2022 Law Acts) <https://www.theukrules.co.uk/rules/employment/laws-list.html> accessed May 1, 2022 

[2] Brady A, “The Employment Relations Act (1999)” [2019] Unions and Employment in a Market Economy 106 

[3] “Employment Rights Act 1996” [2006] Electrical Installation Work Curriculum Support Pack 206 

[4] Madden JM, “The Health and Safety at Work ETC Act 1974” [2017] Electrical Safety and the Law 87 

[5] “Employment Rights Act 1996” [2006] Electrical Installation Work Curriculum Support Pack 206 

[6] Wintemute R, “Goodbye EU Anti-Discrimination Law? Hello Repeal of the Equality Act 2010?” (2016) 27 King’s Law Journal 387 

[7] Service GD, “Taking Sick Leave” (GOV.UKFebruary 10, 2015) <https://www.gov.uk/taking-sick-leave> accessed May 1, 2022

[8] “Employment Rights Act 1996” [2006] Electrical Installation Work Curriculum Support Pack 206 

[9] Service GD, “Dismissal: Your Rights” (GOV.UKApril 7, 2020) <https://www.gov.uk/dismissal> accessed May 1, 2022 

[10] “Five Pregnancy and Maternity Employment Tribunal Claims That Were Successful in 2017” (Redmans Solicitors) <https://redmans.co.uk/insights/five-pregnancy-and-maternity-employment-tribunal-claims-that-were-successful-in-2017/> accessed May 1, 2022 

[11] Service GD, “Pregnant Employees’ Rights” (GOV.UKDecember 18, 2014) <https://www.gov.uk/working-when-pregnant-your-rights> accessed May 1, 2022

[12] “Employment Rights Act 1996” [2006] Electrical Installation Work Curriculum Support Pack 206 

[13] Taylor S and Emir A, “11. The Equality Act 2010: Key Concepts” [2019] Employment Law 212 

[14] Service GD, “Dismissal: Your Rights” (GOV.UKApril 7, 2020) <https://www.gov.uk/dismissal> accessed May 1, 2022 

[15] Taylor S and Emir A, “11. The Equality Act 2010: Key Concepts” [2019] Employment Law 212 

[16] Fell E, “Against Discrimination: Equality Act 2010 (UK)” [2017] The European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences 

[17] Taylor S and Emir A, “11. The Equality Act 2010: Key Concepts” [2019] Employment Law 212 

[18] Morris A, “Mobility Clause (Advice for Employers)” (DavidsonMorrisApril 12, 2020) <https://www.davidsonmorris.com/mobility-clause/> accessed May 1, 2022 

[19] Morris A, “Mobility Clause (Advice for Employers)” (DavidsonMorrisApril 12, 2020) <https://www.davidsonmorris.com/mobility-clause/> accessed May 1, 2022 

[20] Group C, “Employer’s Guide to Mobility Clauses” (Croner) <https://croner.co.uk/resources/contracts-documentation/mobility-clause/> accessed May 1, 2022 

[21] Group C, “Employer’s Guide to Mobility Clauses” (Croner) <https://croner.co.uk/resources/contracts-documentation/mobility-clause/> accessed May 1, 2022 

[22] Morris A, “Mobility Clause (Advice for Employers)” (DavidsonMorrisApril 12, 2020) <https://www.davidsonmorris.com/mobility-clause/> accessed May 1, 2022 

[23] “Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Policy – Stroud.gov.uk” <https://www.stroud.gov.uk/media/1784330/equality-diversity-and-inclusion-policy-2021-25.pdf> accessed May 1, 2022 

[24] “Equal Pay Act 1970” (1970) 8 Managerial Law 1048 

[25] Taylor S and Emir A, “11. The Equality Act 2010: Key Concepts” [2019] Employment Law 212