Employment Law: Cases and Consequences

EMPLOYMENT LAW

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................2
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................2
QUESTION 1...................................................................................................................................2
Eligibility of Michael...................................................................................................................2
QUESTION 2...................................................................................................................................3
Doctrine of Restraint of Trade.....................................................................................................3
QUESTION 3...................................................................................................................................4
Employment law consequences...................................................................................................4
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................6
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................7
1

INTRODUCTION
Employment laws are regarded as the collection of rules, regulations and laws made for
regulating the relationship between the employees and employers. It regulates the actions of the
employers in terms of how they should be hired, their retention and prohibition on firing them
without any valid reason or prior information and consultation to employees (Yin and Zhen,
2021). The laws are also covering what minimum or just and fair payment must be made to
employees, thus protecting their rights. The present report is based on employment law and their
application in various different cases; that is the first case is related to unfair dismissal, the
second case is about assessment of the doctrine of trade and the last case involves the advice to
the new employer regarding the consequences of employment law while undertaking a transfer
of an undertaking.
MAIN BODY
QUESTION 1
Eligibility of Michael
In the present case, it can be identified that Michael was dismissed by Marissa simply on the
grounds that he questioned the safety of the equipment’s that are to be used for his dive.
However, such dismissal by Marissa can easily be categorised as unfair under The Employees
Rights Act, 1996. As per the act, dismissals related to pregnancy, any health and safety issue,
forceful implementation of any statutory right or even whistleblowing can be considered as the
unfair dismissals and hence be treated as invalid (Adams and et.al., 2019). The act also states the
employee needs to be working in the company for more than 2 years in order to file case under
unfair dismissal as per the ERA Act. 1996.
Here, the present case signifies clearly that Michael has been working in Rindell for a period
of 5 years and has refused to undertake the dive because of safety concerns. According to
Michael, the instrument i.e. equipment that he has been given to undertake the dive does not
seem strong to him and hence he has raised question regarding his safety. However, Marissa,
rather than addressing the concern, has clearly stated that he has to go with it i.e. adjust with the
available equipment regardless of the safety issues. She further stated that Michael could either
go for dive with the available equipment or choose to leave the job (Bogg, 2017). Only two days
after the incident, Michael received a dismissal notice stating that he had been dismissed which
automatically led to violation of multiple sections and rules stated in the ERA, 1996.
2