Legal Issues for Management

This article discusses various legal issues in management such as employment contracts, work-life balance, discrimination, and unfair dismissal. It also explores a consumer protection case where legal rights are discussed. The article cites relevant cases and laws to support the arguments presented.

Legal Issues for Management

TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUESTION 1...................................................................................................................................3
A..................................................................................................................................................3
B..................................................................................................................................................3
C..................................................................................................................................................3
D..................................................................................................................................................4
QUESTION 2...................................................................................................................................4
A..................................................................................................................................................4
B..................................................................................................................................................5
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................7

QUESTION 1
A
With respect to the provision relating to the contract of employment Albert Green has not
received any of the contract of employment till the first month of working. This is not at all good
and proper because before commencing the job it is very necessary to have proper contract of
employment and then only the person must join the company. But in the present case Albert
Green first must take the employment contract and then only must join the company as an
employee (Ioannou and Dukes, 2021). In accordance to the employment contract act, there is
requirement of written contract between the employee and the employer. Without this it cannot
be stated that the employees are working within the company and there is not any proof. The
provision of employment contract act also states that it is a legal requirement of the company that
they must provide the contract to each and every employee within the company.
B
Along with the provision of contact of employment it is also necessary for the company
that they provide for a better work life balance. This is because of the reason that in case proper
work life balance so that the employees can work in better and effective manner. This is very
necessary because in case it will not be provided to the employees then they will not be working
in proper and effective manner. In the present case of Albert, was not provided with the
employment role provided and mentioned in job specification (Scott-Patel, 2019). All the duties
provided to Albert were not relating to the job specification which was provided with the job
advertisement. Also, the duty included the cleaning of floor, lifting of heavy material and other
related work which not mentioned in the job specification. Hence, it is the duty of the company
that they must ensure that proper work life balance must be maintained for the employees so that
they can work in better and effective manner. This is very necessary for the reason that it will
motivate the working of the employees to a great extent.
C
Further provision relating to the discrimination need to be followed as per the
employment law. This is very necessary for the reason that when the discrimination is taking
place at the workplace then this is not good for the company. hence, for this it is essential that the
proper working and management of the company must be followed in order to make the working

better and effective. With respect to the present case of Albert, the employees within the
workplace were not allowed to take leave and they can take leave in case of unpaid leave only
(Khan and et.al., 2019). Hence, it is part of discrimination and this is not good for the company
as they are not doing good with the employees working. Also the company asks employees to
work beyond the scheduled time. This is because of the reason that when the working of the
company is discriminating then this will be affecting the efficiency of the business and
employees will leave the company. by referring to the case of Rowstock and anor v Jessemey it
was seen that the equality act 2010 prohibits the act of victimisation committed against the
former employees. With this it can be stated that the working of the company must provide for
discrimination free environment so that employees can work in better and effective manner.
D
Along with this there is also unfair dismissal present in the case of Albert Green. In the
present case, Albert was asked to meet the store manager who informed him to leave the store on
immediate basis as he is too old to cope up with the different job duties. Thus, in the present case
the company is at fault. This is because of the reason that at the time of recruiting the company
know that what are the job responsibility of the person and they know that Albert is too old to
perform those activities but then also they hired him (Atkinson, 2022). Hence, at last the
company unfairly dismissed Albert which is not at all good for him and the company as well.
thus, the company is at fault in this case and also they must not provide for unfair dismissal and
wrong information within the job specification and the job advertisement. With respect to the
case of Lockey V East North East Home leeds was a case which laid to the unfair dismissal and
with this it can be stated that company has done wrongful dismissal with Albert and this is not at
all good.
QUESTION 2
A
In the present case of Kathy and Sally’s shoe the issue is that Kathy came for returning
the shoe after four weeks in faulty situation. This is not good on the part of Kathy because she
has deliberately removed the heels from the shoe and then said that the shoes were faulty. But in
actual she removed the shoes heels on her own and then stated that the shoes were not in proper
condition (Warwick and et.al., 2018). In this case, Kathy does not have any of the legal rights

because here she is at fault and this will not be good for the her to claim the damages. Thus with
this it can be stated that there are not any legal rights being available to Kathy. This is because of
the reason that Kathy is at fault in this situation. The present case outlines that Kathy purchased a
pair of patent black stiletto shoes for attending a wedding. While dancing she noticed that one of
the shoe heel began to work loose and decided to remove the heels. This was not a good act
because of the reason that in case she removes the heel then it will be het choice and this will not
be the responsibility of company. she has purchased the shoes and not it belongs to her so she
can do anything with it but she cannot return it to company.
On the other hand, in case she had kept the shoes as it is when one of the shoe heel
became loose then at that time she had the legal right to sue the company and to claim the
compensation and refund. This is because of the reason that when the shoes would have been
returned to the company in the same lose situation then this might result in proper application of
the legal rights of Kathy (Razak and et.al., 2022). This is necessary for the reason that in case
Kathy would not have removed the heels then she can claim proper compensation with the
company and can also sue them for providing wrong and faulty products. But it is also a fault of
Kathy that she used the heels for dancing as for this purpose the heels are not wear. Hence, in
case she would have not been wearing the heels while dancing then it might not have gotten
loose and not issues would have been faced.
B
The shop managed refused to pay the refund for the shoes on three different grounds.
This is because of the reason that the heels were removed by Kathy and she deliberately removed
the heels. Also the shop manager stated that she also abused the product while dancing and
wearing heels. The purpose of heels is not dancing and this might have resulted in loosening the
heels (Riefa and Willett, 2018). Another reason for which the refund was rejected was that Kathy
had wilfully damaged the product and she deliberately removed the heels. Along with this
another reason for rejection of the refund is that Kathy came after a long period of time that is
four weeks and shop manager assumed that she might have been wearing the footwear during
that whole period.
In the similar case that is Lewin v Rotherthrope road garage ltd (1984) the situation was
present that a used car salesman applied a false trading description which is related to the
mileage reading over the car odometer. The company was prosecuting the trade description act

1968 and relied on the defence. The court in this case made judgement that the defence is
successful. With this it can be implies that providing the refund to Kathy in the present case is
not needed. This is because of the reason that she had deliberately removed the heels and due to
this she will not be provided the refund (Cortes, 2018). Along with this in accordance to
consumer protection act it was seen that the refusal of refund on the grounds of purpose of heel
can fail the refund. This is because of the reason that the purpose of the product cannot be
decided by the shop manager and it can be only decided by the person buying the product only
that for which purpose they are buying the shoes. Thus, on this basis of ground the rejection of
refund can be rejected from the law side.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Atkinson, J., 2022. Zero-hours contracts and English employment Law: Developments and
possibilities. European Labour Law Journal, p.20319525221104165.
Cortes, P., 2018. Consumer ADR in Spain and the United Kingdom. J. Eur. Consumer & Mkt.
L.. 7. p.82.
Ioannou, G. and Dukes, R., 2021. Anything goes? Exploring the limits of employment law in
UK hospitality and catering. Industrial Relations Journal. 52(3). pp.255-269.
Khan, N., and et.al., 2019. Diversity in the workplace: An overview of disability employment
disclosures among UK firms. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management. 26(1). pp.170-185.
Razak, F.A., and et.al., 2022. Extending The Interpretation of “Unfair Terms” in Consumer
Protection Act 1999.
Riefa, C. and Willett, C., 2018. Enforcement and Effectiveness of Consumer Law in the UK.
In Enforcement and Effectiveness of Consumer Law (pp. 673-695). Springer, Cham.
Scott-Patel, K., 2019. UK Employment Law-A Good Plan for Workers?. Int'l. In-House Counsel
J.. 12. p.1.
Warwick, C., and et.al., 2018. Exotic pet suitability: Understanding some problems and using a
labeling system to aid animal welfare, environment, and consumer protection. Journal of
Veterinary Behavior. 26. pp.17-26.