Ask a question to Desklib · AI bot
Report On Case Laws & Legislation | Kitchen Furniture Co Ltd
Added on -2019-09-23
| 13 pages
| 3798 words
| 352 views
Trusted by 2+ million users,
1000+ happy students everyday
Assessment1 | P a g e
ContentsIntroduction................................................................................................................................3Scenario 1...................................................................................................................................4Scenario 2...................................................................................................................................7Conclusion................................................................................................................................10Recommendations....................................................................................................................11References................................................................................................................................132 | P a g e
Introduction: This report is prepared to analyses the case laws and legislations applicable overdifferent scenarios in “Kitchen Furniture Company limited”. The first scenario relates withthe fire incident of Lucy Kent. Lucy Kent, a sales advisor, accidently met with a fire incidentwhile heating up her coffee at retail main office. “Jack Deil” dismissed her and further, shesubmitted unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims at Employment tribunal office. Thereport will analyses employment case laws to provide advice over legal issues and to aidCompany to resolve and refute claims. The second incident relates with “Rost Bert”, the salesrepresentative at commercial head office. The line manager, “Charlie Jacobs” was unhappywith frequent illness leaves and inappropriate behaviour of Rost at work but the issue, whicharoused was that Rost was to undergo gender reassignment process, which would createunrealistic chaos at the premises and at the workplace. This report will provide evaluationwith regard to interpersonal issues such as reaction of colleagues, clients and the company’sresponsibility towards the situation. The company has formulated its purpose, scope and aimwhich is to improve human standards and there is disciplinary procedures towardsemployee’s activities, which is to be followed in case of gross misconduct. 3 | P a g e
Scenario 1: Findings:Advice: In accordance with “Employment & labour law, 2018”, the employment contractcontains an implied term of “mutual trust and confidence” which implies that there should notbe any form of calculative activity which breach the trust and confidence put over each other.In context of company, there was an implied trust over the employee “Lucy” to maintain thedisplay articles at the counter. Lucy was directly responsible for taking care of kitchen unitsand must behave prudently in case of taking care of kitchen units but the negligent behaviourhad led to broke out of fire and economic loss of the company and hence, the managementcan put liability over Lucy for “gross misconduct”. In context of employee, in accordance with employment contract, an employee hasright to receive one week notice per year and cannot be terminated at one moment. Inaddition, since, the company maintains formal disciplinary procedure, than Lucy must begiven appropriate opportunity for describing her situation and her comment over misconduct.Since, the company has proper disciplinary procedures and hence, these must be followed sothat proper authority can be given. In the case of Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt [2003] IRLR 23 CA), Kurmajicwas unfairly dismissed for violating social media disclosure policy of the company and hasbrought disrepute to the company. But later Employment tribunal stated that the Kurmajic hasnot violated any regulations as the driver information which was posted over Facebook is notcustomer and the social media policy is regarding customers. In the current situation,Kurmajic was an employee who has posted information about driver over facebook but theinformation was not about customer. The company policy is with regard to keep private andsafe information about customers and to not disclose about it. Kurmajic did not violatedcompany’s policy rather it has just disclose about the driver personal information such as hisage, address, name etc. who is not customer and hence must not be unfairly dismissed. Afterseveral meetings and thorough investigation Kurmajic was found of guilty and terminated forgross misconduct. The employment tribunal founded that he was not guilty for carelessnessand must not be unfairly dismissed (Sainsbury’s v/s Mr D Kurmajic, 2017). 4 | P a g e
Found this document preview useful?
You are reading a preview
Upload your documents to download
or
Become a Desklib member to get accesss
Paid Plans
Free Plan
Single Unlock
Monthly Plan
Yearly Plan