Employment Law Scenario. In this scenario there are many issues that are relevant in employment law. The most responsible person in the organisation is Mr Gervais. As an employer Mr Gervais has many responsibilities, duties and issues to overcome

Authors Avatar

Law in Business

Assigment two

ASSIGNMENT TWO

        In this assignment will be critically discussed all the issues relevant in employment law against company Ricky Gervais & Co Ltd. It is competent to prove whether the company is liable for breach of employment law. Employer as well as employee has a certain duties expressed in the contract of employment, if the employer or employee fails to execute his duties there can be taken legal actions against him. Breach of legal duties can even result in damage to the claimant as in case Walker v Northumberland County Council, where the employer breached the duty to take reasonable steps to avoid employee’s injury. In some cases it can be found that there has not been breach of duty to care as in Blyth v Proprietors of the Birmingham Waterworks. This case decided that there is no liability for the employer’s breach of duties. Further in the essay it will be identified and discussed the issues that would be relevant in employment law.

When the potential employee visits office premises, it is seen that there are some unsatisfactory conditions for employees. It must be considered whether the employer, Mr Ricky Gervais, is in breach of duty. Firstly, it is necessary to think about uncomfortable chairs and high glare computer screen. Under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 which states that general employers duty is to "ensure so far as is reasonably practicable the health, safety and welfare at work of all their employees" (Daniels, 2008) See Pickford v ICI in that case turned out that employee was suffering from Repetitive strain injury and the employer has duty of care to provide safe equipment to all employees (in this case – appropriate chairs) under the statute of Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. It is also employers duty to prevent employees having illnesses from high glare computer screens which are used in the company Ricky Gervais & Co Ltd. (The Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 and Employer’s Liability (defective equipment) Act 1969) However in some cases it is hard to prove breach of employment law as in John Summers & Sons v Frost. In this case there were no damages done yet, so it was not possible to prove that employer had liability in breach of duty of care.

In this scenario, need to look at ill-fitting carpet at work place. Firstly, it needs to be decided whether the employer, Mr Gervais, is liable for breach of employment Law in this situation. Section 3 in Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 imposes a duty to employers “to conduct their undertakings in such a way to ensure, so far as it is reasonably practicable, that persons not in their employment who may be affected thereby are not exposed to risks to their health and safety.” (Nairns, 2008) As well it is stated that “the employer must inspect work to ensure that it has been carried out to an appropriate standard” (Harlow, 2005) See Woodward v Mayor of Hastings. The danger should have been obvious and the court held them liable. On the other hand, see case Haseldine v C A Daw & Son Ltd. It was decided that the negligent repair by independent constructor was the fault of injury. The ill-fitting carpet also could be evaluated using the scope of the Act – the common duty of care. This states that the duty is “to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe for the purpose for which he is invited or permitted by employer to be there” (Cooke, 1993) As a result the employer is merely obliged to guard against foreseeable risks see Ward v Tesco Stores. Shopkeeper owed duty to predict the danger of spilled yoghurt. On the other hand, it was not the case in Fryer v Pearson. Nothing suggested that it could be predicted that there will be a needle on the floor.  Though there could be risen action in breach of duty of care, the potential employer did not get injury when almost tripped over ill-fitting carpet.

Join now!

The injury is made to an employee, Geoff. It must be considered weather the employer is liable in breach in employment law. Mr Gervais has a duty to provide competent and safe colleagues. This means that “an employer must ensure good behaviour of all employees while at work. All unsafe practices should be dealt with and an employee who indulges in such practises should be disciplined and in extreme cases even dismissed” (Hodge, 2004) As well implied duty in employee’s contract of employment states “your employer must protect  you from any actions in the workplace which cause you ill or ...

This is a preview of the whole essay