This essay will examine the extent to which the statutory provisions on redundancy, laid out in the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA 1996”) and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“TULR(C)A 1992”) as amended, balances the employers need for flexibility and the employees desire for job security (“needs and desires”). In doing so, the essay will set out, firstly, an overview of the statutory provisions regarding redundancy; then, an analyse on how the statutory provisions balance the needs and desires; and finally, a judgement as to the extent the statutory provisions fairly balance these needs and desires of employers and employees respectively.
Redundancy is defined in s.139 ERA 1996 and essentially is where a business or workplace is closing or the need for employees to perform particular services is diminishing or ceases to exist (Taylor and Emir, 2015, p.144). It is a potentially fair reason for dismissal under s.98(2)(c) ERA 1996 and persons covered by the statutory provision of redundancy are employees, that are not excluded, who have been dismissed by reason of redundancy under ss. 136-8 ERA 1996 (Sanders v Ernest A Neal Ltd [1974]), and have been in continuous employment with that employer for at least 2 years (Selwyn, 2006, p.451), subject to exceptions (Pfaffinger v City of Liverpool Community College [1996] IRLR 508). As such, an employee’s desire for job security is dependent on their qualifying period of service, and employers need for flexibility is restricted if an employee qualifies for a redundancy payment.
As articulated, an employee will be able to claim a redundancy payment if they are eligible and shown to be dismissed by reason of redundancy, however, as stressed by the Employment A...
... middle of paper ...
... it is rare for the EAT to order re-employment despite the dismissal was unfair, including, that an employer may be deterred from being flexible through the cost of such payments, especially in regard to multiple employees, outlines that the balance between both the needs and desires respectively are not as fair as they seem. Furthermore, the employers need to follow strict practices and statutory provisions can make it costly for employers to dismiss employees and, as such, improve employees’ job security, yet, this can be argued to reduce an employers need for flexibility as it becomes difficult to make an employee redundancy and respond to change, yet, it can be argued, in situations where 20 or more employees are at risk, the consultation procedure is aimed at mitigating job cuts as thus helps narrow the gap for the statutory provisions to provide a fair balance.
that all the employee's work in the same location, I am going to assume they do based off lack of
Marshall, Shelley, 2004. Enterprise Bargaining, Managerial Prerogative and the Protection of Workers Rights. An Argument on the Role of Law and Regulatory Strategy in Australia under the Workplace Relations Act 199, Vol.22(3), , p.299.
Whether RSI claims reach the courts and are won or lost, employers, prior to the claim, have almost certainly been paying a price through the employee’s general lack of wellbeing and discontent at work. Unfortunately, in a lot of instances the very nature of this condition lends itself to being overlooked by management, until it is too late and a claim becomes imminent?
In conclusion, employment relations have changed considerably since the 1980s. The falls in union membership triggered initially by the miners and print unions defeats, along with the legal constraints surrounding unions which were introduced by the conservative government and mostly retained by the labour party have all combined to reduce the impact of trade unions on present day employment relations. However unions and employers are adapting to these changes and adopting different approaches to managing industrial relations.
Upon receiving notice to layoff and redesign job descriptions of employees, specific areas were reviewed in order to make a decision that would provide the best outcome for the company. These areas included job performance, productivity, special achievements, job responsibility, educational qualifications, absenteeism and status.
...e Bargaining, Managerial Prerogative and the Protection of Workers Rights: An Argument on the Role of the Law and Regulatory Strategy in Australia under the Workplace Act 1996 (Cth). Retrieved on April 9, 2013, from http://www.google.co.ke/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.unimelb.edu.au%2FE8812500-7599-11E2-84E10050568D0140&ei=t0RkUdT0K62V7Ab48IC4Bw&usg=AFQjCNEfV17R8n5eNatsPXKQRxB9bqvUig&bvm=bv.44990110,d.ZGU.
The Canadian employment law system consists of three regimes: common law, employment regulation, and collective bargaining agreement (CBA). From these regimes, the common law of employment is one that was created by Judges over centuries in order to regulate the employer-employee relationship. Judges, from lower level to upper level courts have used employment contracts and torts, two tools available to them under the common law system to aid in decision-making with respect to employment law cases. The decisions of which have been recorded and used as a precedent in future employment law cases of the same nature. When considering the common law of employment from the three listed regimes, I relate to speaker two while disagreeing with speaker one. Although, the common law of employment has historically excluded protections covered by the employment legislation and CBA, which has made it appear to favor the economic interests of employers more than employees, it has not completely put employees at a disadvantage because, it has protected them and their interests in other significant a...
This legislation does not prevent dismissals from occurring but only allows the employee to challenge their dismissal. The Unfair Dismissals Act 1977-2007 is the legislation that covers the basis for Alfie’s case. In his case, he seeks to prove that his dismissal was unfair and unwarranted. Thereby seeking redress from his employee. Many aspects of his case are pertinent to the Acts as the facts indicate.
Currently, directors have no prima facie entitlement to be remunerated for their work (Hutton v West Cork Railway Co 1883), but Article 23 of the Companies (Model Articles) Regulations 2008 establishes that it is for directors to decide the lev...
The employee turnover rate and the retention of skilled employees is a major problem businesses face. “Conservative estimates put the cost of replacing a lost employee at 25 percent of the annual compensation amount. For the typical full time employee who earns $38,481 and receives $50,025 in total compensation, the total cost of turnover would amount to $12,506 per employee.” This being the case employee turnover is a major cost and can significantly influence the bottom line so it should be avoided if possible. (Bliss)
Layoffs are one means by which an organization can reduce expenses with the intent of improving its bottom line. Despite being typically performed as a last resort, layoffs often have a negative impact on the remaining workforce. As a manager, there are numerous areas for concern in managing the workforce going forward. The human costs related to downsizing are “immense and far-reaching” with one of the most profound being survivor syndrome according to Hanson (2015, p. 187). Also known as survivor’s guilt, this condition relates to the emotions felt by those still employed and some of the effects include decreased motivation, moral, and job satisfaction, as well as an increased proclivity to search for other employment. This volunteer turnover being another grave concern for managers, and retention of the remaining workforce is usually dependent on their existing perception of the organization and its culture (Sitlington & Marshall, 2011). Also relayed by
The theory holds work to be governed by a wide range of formal and informal rules and regulations, which cover everything from recruitment, holidays, performance, wages, hours, and a myriad of other details of employment. It asserts that these rules are what industrial actors try to determine, that their establishment is influenced by the wider environmental context in which the actors operate, and that the actors themselves share an interest in maintaining the processes of negotiation and conflict resolution. On the back of these assertions four elements are held to make up the system of industrial relations rule-making. The first is industrial actors, which consists of employers and their representatives (i.e., employer associations), employees and their representatives (i.e., trade unions), and external agencies with an interest in industrial relations (i.e., government departments and labour courts). The second is the environmental context, which
673), retention management must be based on three types of turnover, voluntary, discharged, and downsizing. Not all businesses are freighted by turnovers, for some it is the way of life and cost is built into the budget. However, for others any type of high turnover can be detrimental for company profit, employee wage and benefits offered. First, let’s take a look at voluntary and involuntary turnover that affects retention. Voluntary turnovers are caused by many different reasons. Turnover may result from topics such as job dissatisfaction, job mismatching, knowing that job opportunities are plentiful. Two reasons that I will discuss more are micromanagement and employee loyalty. Like stated before in the introduction, when employees are dissatisfied, possibly due to being placed in an area that doesn’t fit with their skill set, one is more likely to seek new employment. Another part of turnover is discharging and downsizing. Discharge is just that, members being discharged due to discipline and job performance. While downsizing turnover is a result of business being overstaffed (Heneman III, Judge, Kammeyer-Mueller, 2015, pg. 675). There are also other reasons for voluntarily employee turnover, such as generation differences when it relates to employment. The current generations are more likely to see a job as one piece in their life puzzle rather than as the first, indispensable anchor piece without
The role of the government on industrial relations is very important as it sets the legal framework that industrial relations operates in. Appropriate industrial relations legislation should recognize the requirements of both employers and employee’s. Both the employee and the employer want to profit from each other but are also reliant on each other. This means that the equal bargaining power of employers and workers must be recognized (Peetz, David. 2006). Appropriate industrial relations laws should address any imbalance of power and give both groups an equal degree of control. Appropriate industrial relations should not only allow a mixture of both collective and individual bargaining but also facilitate employee participation in day to day workplace decisions. After all it’s the structure and framework of the employment relationship, which is governed by legislation that leads to good Industrial Relations.
Section 188 of the Act (Labour Relations Act) stipulates that a dismissal is unfair if the employer fails to prove that the reason for the dismissal is a fair reason based on the misconduct or incapacity of the employee, or is based on the employer's operational requirements, and that the dismissal was effected in accordance with a fair procedure. Persons or Employers considering whether or not the reason for dismissal is of fair reason is in accordance with fair procedure must take into account any relevant Code of Good Practice issued in terms of Schedule 8 of the Act – as discussed here-in: