Have you ever considered what employment would be like if there was no law to govern the process? Well, the answer might not be positive. There would be a situation in which everyone, employers and employees alike, would do whatever they wanted without regard to whether or not it was legal. Employment laws were enacted to address workplace issues and ensure the smooth operation of the workplace for both employees and employers. These employment laws cover topics such as the employer-employee relationship, contracting, fair treatment for all, wrong and right dismissal, work-life balance, and other workplace activities. The goal of this essay is to evaluate Kelly and Michael’s case studies, identify the statutes and law that are relevant to their scenario, and provide the procedures and remedies that apply in their case.
Kelly is in a situation where she wishes to spend more time with her newborn baby. She does not want to quit her job, but rather reduce the number of hours she works per week by implementing a job-sharing program, which she sees as a better option for balancing her work and personal life. The manager of the company where she works appears to be opposed to her idea of an embarrassing job-sharing scheme. We will investigate the employment laws and statutes that apply to her situation. This will allow us to determine whether she is legally entitled to what she is requesting and whether her employer is required to comply with her request.
A number of laws exist to help employees balance their work and personal lives. The Employment Rights Act of 1996 is one of the laws. The regulation acknowledges that employees may request time off for a variety of reasons (Scottish Government, 2015).
Some of the legal reasons include civil and public duties, antenatal care, parental leave, and care for dependents (Scottish Government, 2015). The law also states that parents with children under the age of seventeen or those with disabled children under the age of eighteen can request flexible work schedules from their employer. Kelly will soon become a mother to a child under the age of seventeen. She is requesting flexible working hours so that she can care for her child. Sections 80F–80I of the Employment Act of 1996 (Rose, 2017) guarantee what Kelly is requesting, and it is thus the employer’s responsibility to provide it. Kelly’s being the administrative officer of Moore Harley Ltd means she has worked with the company for more than 26 weeks. The Flexible Working Regulations (2014), which absorbed the Employment Rights Act of 1996, provide that employees who have worked in a company for at least 26 weeks can apply for a flexible working arrangement with their employers (legislation.gov.uk, 2014). The statutory regulations also provide a way through which the employee can apply for flexible working arrangements with their employer.
The use of flexible working arrangements is divided into two categories. It can be both a statutory and an unstatutory request to the employer. If an employer chooses to make the application for flexible working arrangements in the form of a non-statutory request, the application must be in writing, and applicants must state whether they have previously applied for similar arrangements, as well as the date of the application (legislation.gov.uk, 2014). The applicant for the flexible working arrangement should also specify the working pattern they are seeking, as well as the date they intend to begin. Employees who apply for the arrangements should also explain how the arrangements will affect their employer and what they can do to avoid any inconveniences that may arise as a result of the arrangement (Advice for Scotland, n.d.). The applicant may also state why they are applying for flexible working arrangements without providing a reason.
In Kelly’s case, she can state that she is applying for the arrangements so that she can make care plans for her soon-to-be-born child. Her employer would understand that denying her the opportunity would be a bad thing.
The employee can also apply for a flexible working arrangement through a non-statutory application. In the case of a non-statutory application, the employee must also submit it in writing and it must be dated (Advice for Scotland, n.d). The application also requires the applicant to have planned the schedule of the flexible work arrangements and set a start date. The applicant should also explain how the flexible working arrangements will affect the company and what the organization can do to avoid being inconvenienced by the arrangements. Finally, the employee can explain why they are requesting flexible working arrangements for their employers to consider.
There are two ways to apply for flexible working arrangements: statutory and non-statutory applications. Before making the application, one should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the two options. If an employee is denied a statutory request for flexible working arrangements by their employer, they can go to the employment tribunal to claim the arrangement under the law of flexible working for employees (Advice for Scotland, n.d). If, on the other hand, the employer refuses to approve the flexible arrangement under the non-statutory request, the employee cannot file a claim with the employment tribunal. They are, however, given the opportunity to proceed to the employment tribunal if they feel discriminated against and wish to claim the flexible employment arrangement on the basis of discrimination rather than flexible employment (Advice for Scotland, n.d). Similarly, when it comes to the number of requests that can be made per year, non-statutory requests have no limit. Statutory requests, on the other hand, are limited to one application per year.
There is a policy in place that allows employees in certain situations to respond appropriately. The policy rationale is the name given to the policy. Scottish Government (2015). Employees are required to respond appropriately to applications for flexible work arrangements if they are requesting the arrangements to care for their spouse, parents, civil partners, children, or any other person in the household who relies on the employee for assistance (Scottish Government, 2015). An example of a policy rationale is when an employee requests flexible working arrangements in order to care for their sick spouse or child (Scottish Government, 2015). Kelly is one of these people, and her employer must respond appropriately to her request.
Responding appropriately to Kelly’s needs does not necessarily mean that they must accept the request made by Kelly. The organization or the employers also have grounds to access the request made by Kelly. If the organization is capable of providing good business grounds to show that it will be adversely affected by the decision to accommodate the request made by Kelly, then they can decline Kelly’s request. If Kelly feels her entitlement has been violated, she has the right to proceed to file a lawsuit against her employers. But there is a procedure that needs to be followed when filing a lawsuit with the employment tribunal. First, Kelly will need to file her lawsuit with the employment tribunal within three months of the problem happening (GOV.UK, n.d). Before making a claim, Kelly will have to inform the Advisory, Conciliation, and Arbitration Service (ACAS), which will give her an opportunity to solve the dispute with her employers through reconciliation. When the reconciliation does not work, the ACAS will provide Kelly with a certificate through which she can make a claim to the tribunal within a month.
Kelly’s request is covered by the Employment Rights Act of 1996, the Flexible Working Regulation of 2014, and the policy rationale.
This implies that Kelly’s request should be met by her employees. It would be preferable if Kelly made her application via statutory request. In this manner, she will be able to seek legal assistance if her employer refuses her request for flexible working arrangements. Similarly, Kelly should make the statutory request as soon as possible so that her employers have enough time to process her request. Kelly’s boss should allow her to pursue work flexibility that works for her while also allowing her to care for her child. Because Kelly has requested a job-share scheme, the company will not be put off because operations will continue as usual because there will be someone to fill Kelly’s position when she is not present.
The case of Michael is the other scenario to be evaluated in this essay. Michael also works as a receptionist at Moore Harley Ltd. He has a medical condition that would put her life in jeopardy if he got the coronavirus vaccine. Michael is at a higher risk of contracting the coronavirus due to his position at work, particularly because he interacts with the majority of the company’s customers. Michael has asked to be allowed to continue working from home until the threat of COVID-19 has passed. His line manager appears to be opposed to Michael’s request and wants him to return to physical work in the company. We will look at the laws that protect employees from hazardous exposure to their health to determine whether Michael’s plea is valid and whether her employer is required to grant his request.
Every employee and employer benefits from a healthy workplace. Some workplaces are prone to accidents and pose health risks to those who work there. Since 1961, the Scottish government and the United Kingdom as a whole have made strides in addressing the issue of healthy and safe working conditions. The Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974 was enacted by the United States government to ensure a conducive, safe, and healthy workplace (Blewitt, 2021).
This allowed employers to be held accountable for unsafe workplace conditions that put their employees’ health and lives in jeopardy. The government established the Health and Safety Executive, which is in charge of overseeing employee safety and health.
As an employee of Moore Harley Ltd, Michael is covered by the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act. Employers are required by the act to provide a healthy and safe working environment for their employees (Unison, n.d). Similarly, the employer is responsible for ensuring that the company’s activities do not endanger the lives of its employees (Blewitt, 2021). The Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974 was enacted in response to an increase in the number of risks in the 1960s. Michael is concerned about her health if he returns to physical labor at the company. He claims to have medical documentation proving that he has underlying medical conditions that would put him at risk if he contracted the coronavirus. His employers are required by the Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974 to provide a safe working environment for him. On this basis, his employers must permit him to work from home if working physically puts his life at risk if he contracts the coronavirus.
The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations of 1999 require employers to conduct risk assessments in order to identify potential sources of harm to employees (Perry, 2016). The safety and health regulations were an extension of the Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974, but they aimed to improve employee safety in the workplace by focusing on consultation with both the employer and the employees. In the case of Michael, the organization must evaluate the source that would put him in danger. Instead of pressuring him to do physical labor, they should conduct a risk assessment first. Employers should determine whether they are doing anything to prevent the risk after conducting a risk assessment. Michael has a medical history that would put his life in jeopardy if the coronavirus caught up with him. In order to reduce the risk, the company should allow him to continue working from home rather than come to the office, where there is a higher risk of contracting the coronavirus due to his proximity to the client. In this manner, the company will have fulfilled its obligation under the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act.
The Flexible Working Regulation of 2014 is another law that, if followed, would benefit Michael. According to the regulation, an employee has the right to flexible working arrangements in the event of unforeseeable circumstances that necessitate flexibility at work (Advice for Scotland, n.d). Covid-19 was unexpected and caught everyone off guard. Michael’s health is jeopardized because he has medical issues that would put him at greater risk if he contracted COVID-19. Michael is attempting to alter his normal working routine in order to improve his health. As a result, he is entitled to flexible working arrangements from his employer under the regulation. Working from home is an option he chooses to protect himself from health risks that could endanger his life. Michael appears to be unaware that what he is requesting from his employers is flexible working arrangements. Although Michael has not used this law, it is applicable in his scenario. If Michael follows the proper procedures for submitting a request for a flexible working arrangement, there is a better chance that his employers will allow him to work from home until the COVID-19 expires.
Another act of law governs the safety and health of employees at work. The Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996 are the name of this act. These laws require employers to consult with their employees on workplace health and safety issues (Hammond, 1997). Workplace health and safety necessitates a shared responsibility on the part of all stakeholders. The regulation called for a room where employees and employers could negotiate or swap ideas on how to improve workplace safety and health. This includes not only the overall health and safety of the organization, but also employee safety and health consultation. As a result, Michael’s manager should speak with him and confirm whether or not what he is claiming is true. This way, Michael and his employer will reach a decision that will not jeopardize Michael’s health.
The Equality Act of 2010 is an important law when dealing with employees. It advises employers on how to treat their employees. The Equality Act of 2010 prevents employers from discriminating against individuals on the basis of their gender, nationality, race, disability, color, or any other distinguishing characteristic (Act, 2010). In the case of Michael, I would categorize him among those who are healthwise disabled. This is because he has underlying medical conditions that would expose him to risks if he contracted COVID-19. Michael should be able to accommodate her underlying condition as long as he is not imposing extra costs on the company. If Michael is performing well at his assigned work at home, he should also be allowed to work at home. It may amount to discrimination by his employers if we fail to accommodate him with his condition. Descrimination in the workplace would also attract lawsuits if it is proven that the organization is forcing him to work with his colleagues who do not have any health issues that would put them at risk.
If Michael returns to physical labor and contracts the coronavirus, which could endanger his life, he is obligated to sue his employers. Employers are supposed to be the first line of defense in ensuring that employee safety is taken into account in all aspects of the organization’s operations. Michael is attempting to protect himself from health risks by requesting to work from home until the coronavirus era is over. His employer could face legal action if he fails to follow the regulations of the Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974. Similarly, Michael’s employers will have violated a provision of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations of 1999 that requires risk assessment at work and the identification of ways to prevent these risks. Finally, Michael’s employers would have violated the Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996 if they refused to consult with him about his health and how working on the frontline where there is a high risk of contracting COVID-19 disease would be dangerous.
To summarize, employers must be familiar with the laws that govern them and their workplaces. As a result of the increased awareness, suits against individuals or the organization as a whole will be avoided. Lawsuits against an organization are harmful because they result in capital losses in compensation and cost the organization valuable time in legal proceedings that could have been used for productive work. Employers have a greater responsibility to keep the workplace safe and healthy. Employees, on the other hand, have an obligation to follow workplace safety and health regulations, failing which they may face legal action. As a result, it is the responsibility of everyone in the workplace, both employer and employee, to do their part to make the workplace a better place for all.
Reference List
Act, E., 2010. Equality act. The Stationary Office, London.
Advice for Scotland, n.d. Flexible working – how to make a request. [online] Citizensadvice.org.uk. Available at: <https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/work/rights-at-work/flexible-working/flexible-working-how-to-make-a-request/> [Accessed 20 April 2022].
Blewitt, A., 2021. Health & Safety at Work Act 1974.
GOV.UK, n.d. Make a claim to an employment tribunal. [online] GOV.UK. Available at: <https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunals> [Accessed 20 April 2022].
Hammond, N., 1997. Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996. Journal of the Royal Society of Health, 117(3), pp.192-193.
legislation.gov.uk, 2014. The Flexible Working Regulations 2014. [online] Legislation.gov.uk. Available at: <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1398/made> [Accessed 20 April 2022].
Perry, P., 2016. The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. In Risk Assessments Questions and Answers: A practical approach (pp. 37-47). ICE Publishing.
Rose, E., 2017. Workplace temporalities: a time-based critique of the flexible working provisions. Industrial Law Journal, 46(2), pp.245-267.
Scottish Government, 2015. Supporting worklife balance: NHSScotland PIN policy. [online] Gov.scot. Available at: <https://www.gov.scot/publications/supporting-worklife-balance-partnership-information-network-policies/pages/13/> [Accessed 20 April 2022].
Unison, n.d. UNISON Scotland Health and Safety Law Tips. [online] Unison-scotland.org.uk. Available at: <https://www.unison-scotland.org.uk/safety/hslaw.html> [Accessed 20 April 2022].
write