Protection provided by Employment law fail 'atypical worker' in relation with agency worker

This article discusses how Employment law fails to provide protection to atypical workers in relation to agency workers. It explores the differences in rights and benefits between the two types of workers and highlights the limitations of employment law for atypical workers.

Assessment
(Questions)

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................1
1. Advise Hibo and Roda............................................................................................................1
2. Protection provided by Employment law fail 'atypical worker' in relation with agency
worker.........................................................................................................................................3
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................5
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................6

INTRODUCTION
Laws plays good role in everyone life i.e. whether they belongs to personal or
professional. In the same way, current report is also helps to develop a deep understanding of
employment law of UK and how the law help people to face any challenges. Similarly, report
will provide advice to Hibo and Roda in order to cope up with their own problems and further,
describe the protection provided by Employment law dramatically fails 'atypical worker' who are
not it in traditional categories of employment with relation to agency workers.
MAIN BODY
1. Advise Hibo and Roda
As per the case scenario, both Hibo and Roda both are employees of Maccan Restaurant
chain and due to sudden decline is sales, company owners decided to make changes. That is why,
Hibo was told to be a redundant without any reason. But she suspect that due to her pregnancy
she was selected for redundancy. Redundancy is a form of a dismissal from the job and this s
generally done when an employers wants to reduce their workforce and due to decline is sales,
owners of a restaurant treat Hibo as a redundant. Therefore, it is advice to Hibo that under
Employment Law of UK, every employee working in the company treated equally even he or she
is disable, pregnant or belongs to other religion. In the same way, if company comply with an
employment law then it is the right of the employee to know why she was told as a redundant.
Even Hibo suspect that due to pregnancy she is called so then under Employment law, if a
worker is pregnant then any employer did not discriminate against in the terms of an
employment on the basis of a pregnancy or related conditions (Rose and Busby, 2017). Even
there is a maternity leaves are also applicable for the person who is pregnant and also take
advantage for the same. But told them as a redundant is false because Hibo is a pregnant.
Or else, if the Maccan Restaurant told Hibbo so then it is employers themselves offers a
suitable alternative work and the person have a right to refuse without a good reason. Further,
the owner of Maccan Restaurant have to pay amount under redundancy pay to Hibo as well as a
have to serve notice period, further, also provide an option to move into different job. These are
the rights of a redundant i.e. Hibo. Employment law also state that Id a company dismiss you
because of disability or pregnancy, then this must be classes as an unfair dismissal in which Hibo
should fir a case against them in order to get justice (Haines, 2018).
1

Therefore, it is clear that under employment law of UK, a person may not easily dismiss
from the job without giving any exact reason and in the same way, Hibo is also advice to
perform the same because it is her right and due to low sales, company did not dismiss any of the
employees without providing proper alternative options. Hence, with the help of employment
law, Hibo may easily file a case and may work on the same or choose another as well.
On the other side, in the case of Roda who has not been selected under redundancy
scheme, but she was moved to another branch of the company around 40 miles away. Even her
pay will also remain same but now she Is actually concern that she is not able to collect her small
children from the school if she moves. Therefore, it is advice to Roda that under employment
law, proper working hours are assigned to the person and as Roda may work under child-
friendly working hours in order to provide care to their children (Adams, Freedman and Prassl,
2018). Under this, the employer must accept the request or a flexible work and as a result, they
may not discriminate against it. The employment law also state that all the employees whether
they are trainee or apprentices have a legal right in order to make a request for a changes to their
working hours. It means that Roda may ask to work as a part-time, get flexible working hours,
term- time only or shifts in order to fit own childcare. In this time, employer did not refuse
request of Roda but he has a right only when the presented information is fake and also fire from
the job as well.
In addition to this, it is further supported under employment law which define all the
rights of the workers so that they may easily perform the work in the company. In the same way,
it is also advice to Roda to get advantage of the same and ask for the flexible working hours
because she has to pick her children, now Maccan restaurant transfer her role and now she has to
go 40 miles away and even she is working with same pay. Thus, it is her right to ask for extra
pay as well as flexibility working hours because of long distance and for her childcare as well
(Gooberman, Hauptmeier and Heery, 2019). Thus, if Roda gave an application to her employer
then employer must provide a decision within three months of the date o application unless Roda
and her employer agree to a longer period. As, it is clear that using Employment law, an
individual may get different benefits and also perform the work. In the same way, both Hibo and
Roda should also use employment law and know different benefits which an act provided so that
they both may get solutions and also take action accordingly in order to face the problem.
2

Additionally, it is also advice Roda that employer did not reject her request and even they
may also use of ACAS who provide a guidance for the employers how to handle the situation in
a reasonable manner and as a code of practices which may help employers to deal with such
situation (Taylor and Elphick, 2019). Therefore, Roda have a valid reason and she can easily ask
to get a flexible working hours, but Roda has to be make sure that all the information in
application should be true and authentic so that they may get flexibility working hours from
Macaan restaurant.
2. Protection provided by Employment law fail 'atypical worker' in relation with agency worker
Employment law exist in UK in order to regulate the relationship between business as
well as employees. Therefore, by complying with relevant legislation both employees and
employers of the company may easily make the business process easy and fair. But atypical
worker did not fall into the traditional role o full time employee working because they did not
come under the contract of employment of indefinite length such that part – time people, or
people who work at home with flexible hours (Painter and Holmes, 2015). On the other side, in
UK, agency worker law is developed which refers to which regulate the people's work through
employment agencies. Not only this, the government of UK also passed a law in favor of Agency
workers regulation in which every agency worker give at least equal pay and working time rights
as compared to atypical worker. On the other side, employment law of UK fails to provide the
same to atypical workers because they are not work under a contract as they did their work as per
own flexibility. Employment law of UK protected people from discrimination, provide minimum
wages for their work, health and safety etc. But it is only applicable for casual worker or agency
workers who work under the employers.
Additionally, it is also identified under employment law, that it is concerned with the
employee and their rights or obligations and proper documentation is also required. Further, this
is not applicable for atypical workers because they did not have any contract even for short or
longer time and on contrary, agency workers are mainly work under proper supervision in order
to get he best results. Therefore, it is clear that using employment law, a person will be protected
and as a result, they will easily live in a working environment (Horton, 2018). As employment
law in UK provides compensation and different benefits to the agency workers, while it is nit
applicable for atypical workers because they do not provide their specific time for the business.
As employment law also provide benefits to the agency workers such that when any employee in
3

the company do extra work except their working hours then they will definitely get extra
incentives for that whether it will be in a form of monetary or non- monetary. On the other side,
it is not applicable for atypical workers as they are only work according their flexibility and also
have zero hour work contract with their employers. That is why, they did not come under
employment law and also did not take an advantage of all the benefits which are prescribe under
Employment Law of UK.
Overall, these are the reasons, which clearly reflect that atypical workers did not get
advantage of the employment law and that is why, employment law of UK fails to provide all the
benefit to atypical workers because they do not fit into traditional categories of employment. In
addition to this, the employment law of UK is also complied with minimum wage act in which
company has to provide minimum wage to their employees which is applicable for agency
workers but in the case atypical workers, they work under contract basis and as a result, they do
not take advantage of this and as a result, employment law dramatically fail fro atypical workers
(Taylor and Emir, 2015). Another example is Pension act of UK is also falls under this category,
which gives right to be automatically enrolled in the basic occupational pension and this is
applicable for those workers who falls under casual and agency workers because they give their
specific time to the business. While in the case of atypical worker, they did not get any
advantage of employment law because they are not regarded as permanent employees .
Moreover, employment law of UK also comply with Equality Act, 2010 which requires
that all the people who are working in the company should be treated equally, unless there is a
good justification that is further based upon the gender, race, sexual orientation. Therefore, law
also provide a clear guidelines that each and every employers of the firm should be treated
equally and this is applicable to fixed term contracts or the permanent staff. This statement also
clarify that employment law dramatically fails for atypical workers because they are not fit into
traditional category of an employment (Freedland and Dhorajiwala, 2019). Further, government
of UK also provides different laws and legislation that support agency workers such that notice
period, Agency workers regulations 2010 and many more in order to protect the workers from
any mishapen. This is not applicable for atypical workers, even when company provide them
extra work in Sundays then it is the duty of the employers to pay extra for the same and the same
is not applicable to atypical workers because they work under a contract in which fixed work is
allotted and it depends upon them how to perform the same.
4

Therefore, it is cleared that employment law fails to provide the law which are sanction
under Employment Law of UK to atypical workers but these laws are applicable for agency
workers. But on the other side, it is also realized that by complying with employment law will
help to get all medical facility which may includes lie insurance, retirement benefits and paid
time off. When a person working as a typical workers they did not have any right as a agency
workers. Therefore, it is also realized that agency worker perform the job in which proper
duration of job is describe with lots of employee responsibility but it is not applicable in the case
of atypical worker and they only perform the work which is assigned and did not maintain a
good relationship with their industry (Fahy and et.al., 2017). Therefore, it is analyzed that
Employment law is mostly applicable for those employees who perform the work in permanent
basis and also work for the company for longer time, but the law of UK is fails for atypical
workers as they are not fit under the employment law and as a result, they did not get benefited
of all the benefits which are prescribe under this. Hence, agency workers have lots of advantages
which are also written in Employment law and in the other case, atypical workers did not get
benefited for the same. As a result, employment law dramatically fails for atypical workers.
CONCLUSION
By summing up above it has been concluded that employment law provides a better
relationship to an employee with a company or employers and that is why, they sustain long term
relation as well. Report concluded that with the help of Employment law of UK, Hibo and Roda
may also take action and get benefited. Further, report also concluded that with employment law
of UK dramatically fails to atypical workers, as they did not belongs to employment while,
agency workers do. Report concluded that company provide all the benefits from the company
when they are agency workers but the same is not applicable for atypical workers.
5

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Adams, A., Freedman, J. and Prassl, J., 2018. Rethinking Legal Taxonomies for the Gig
Economy: Tax Law, Employment Law, and Economic Incentives. Oxford Review of
Economic Policy (Forthcoming).
Fahy, N. and et.al., 2017. How will Brexit affect health and health services in the UK?
Evaluating three possible scenarios. The Lancet.390(10107). pp.2110-2118.
Freedland, M. and Dhorajiwala, H., 2019. UK response to new trade Union strategies for new
forms of employment. European Labour Law Journal.10(3). pp.281-290.
Gooberman, L., Hauptmeier, M. and Heery, E., 2019. The decline of Employers’ Associations in
the UK, 1976–2014. Journal of Industrial Relations. 61(1). pp.11-32.
Haines, A., 2018. UK considers closer links between employment and tax rules. International
Tax Review.
Horton, R., 2018. Employment/Labour Law. Great Debates on Gender and Law.
Painter, R. and Holmes, A., 2015. Cases and materials on employment law. Oxford University
Press, USA.
Rose, E. and Busby, N., 2017. Power relations in employment disputes. Journal of Law and
Society.44(4). pp.674-701.
Taylor, A. and Elphick, L., 2019. Discrimination Law and the Language of Torts in the UK
Supreme Court. Available at SSRN 3402216.
Taylor, S. and Emir, A., 2015. Employment law: an introduction. Oxford University Press,
USA.
6