Workplace Law Assignment: Analysis of Employer-Employee Contracts

This report presents a detailed analysis of two workplace law assignments based on case studies. The first assignment examines the employment status of a contract worker, Marion, and assesses whether her employer, either Technicalities Ltd. or Innovative Storage (IS), breached any contractual duties. The analysis considers factors such as payment terms, work instructions, and control over the employee's activities. The second assignment focuses on Anna, a photographer, and her employment relationship with Creative Juices PVT. Ltd. It addresses whether Anna is considered an employee, whether her employer is obligated to pay her for refusing to travel, and whether the employer, Max, breached any contractual duties related to her injury. The report applies UK employment law principles, including vicarious liability and the importance of clear contractual terms, to determine the rights and obligations of both employers and employees. The conclusion emphasizes the importance of adhering to workplace legislation to protect workers and avoid legal liabilities.

Workplace Law

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
Assignment 1...................................................................................................................................3
(a). Marion an employee or another type of worker...................................................................3
(b). Marion’s employer, Technicalities or IS..............................................................................3
(c). Marion’s employer breached any contractual duty owed to her...........................................4
Assignment 2...................................................................................................................................4
(a). Whether or not Anna is an employee...................................................................................4
(b). Employer have to pay her for the period she refused to travel for work.............................5
(c). Max has breached any contractual duty in relation to her injury.........................................5
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION
The UK government has introduced various of legislation for safeguarding the interest of
worker within the territory of England. This statue provides protection to employee from various
of aspect by introducing to employer for performing their job well. In this report consist of two
assignment which related to worker of Marion and Anna who faces problem regarding
contractual term so legislation of this law secured the interest of each party. The whole
assignment has based on case study which has required to solve by applying legal provision.
Assignment 1
(a). Marion an employee or another type of worker
Contract hourly worker/employee – In this case, Marion has appointed by Technicalities
Ltd in year 2014 which is the labour hire company therefore, hiring of eligible person is the duty
of this organization. At the time of appointment company shows condition for work which is
relates to payment and work instruction etc. in addition, she is appointed for hourly payment
basis so when he work for enterprise then it would be payment as hourly basis. Ultimately,
company placed her with a client, Innovative Storage with same condition. Thus, by reviewing
all this situation it is analysis that Marion is working as contract worker who has appointed until
December 2015. During this time, IS order to Marion for not followed instruction given by
Technicalities Ltd. Therefore, he would be treats as employee of company because he involves in
every activities which organise by IS at regular period. But she is treats as contract hourly
worker who is liable for job till December 2015 only. Therefore, tenure of work has been
completed when after contract period. Apart from this, enterprise has paid to her on hourly basis
as their daily work so no instruction is given when she is engaged in contract work. It is also
depends on her to join or not join work so it is just her consent to involve in work force.
As per the employment act state that ultimate controlled should be considered during
working condition so there is IS has total controlled over Marion in course of employment and
management also confirm to be continue her service till December 2015.
(b). Marion’s employer, Technicalities or IS
In this case, Technicalities Ltd is a hiring company which is just responsible to hire
person for client organization as their requirement so it appoints to Marion as a worker and gives
all instruction regarding employment condition. Then place to client company IS. They decided
to paid in hourly basis and required to followed all instruction given by company. Finally, it

places to IS enterprise therefore, as per the employment act, IS enterprise will be treats as
employer because it has instruction right during working hour further, in exchanges it paid as
hourly basis. Hence, in this situation Marion’s employer will be IS because it has ultimate
controlled during working hours. On the other hand, work related instruction is given by IS as
their operational activities and payment has been made as accordingly. Whenever she injured
then also IS enterprise has reimbursed as their injury along with, IS organization has also clearly
indicate to Marion to not followed the instruction given by Technicalities Ltd. So it is the
implied that IS is the employer of Marion.
(c). Marion’s employer breached any contractual duty owed to her
In this case, Marion is the employee of IS company who has breach the contractual duty
as described in employment act. Further, when Technicalities Ltd. Hire to Marion for work then
they get sign her on all document and place to client company. Therefore, it is the obligation of
IS enterprise to serve proper notice for showing continuing service. The failure of serve notice is
indicate that employer engaged in breach of term as well. Therefore, it is arisen legal liabilities
against employer. On the other hand, it is liabilities of employer to provides fair environment to
worker further, in this case, Marion slip down by mopped up oil when she carries office
equipment therefore, it is the employer liabilities to take any action for safeguarding the interest
of their employee. The injury emerged to her is liable to employer. There is applied vicarious
liabilities which directly liable to employer for mistake of their other worker.
In this case, Marion has appointed on hourly basis remuneration therefore, employer is
only liable for paid to employee when she engaged at operational work. But she injured during
course of employment is directly liable to employer for paid compensation.
Assignment 2
(a). Whether or not Anna is an employee
In this case Anna is a work as employee under controlled of Max who is the owner of
Creative Juices PVT. Ltd. Further, this company is mainly deals in photography business.
Therefore, in this company Anna work as photographer who produce innovative television
advertisement. As per the employment relationship, employee is eligible for salary in exchanged
of their work therefore, company paid her fix remuneration at each end of the month so he used
to earned $150000 per annum. Organization also paid reimbursement of $500 to employee for
photo shoot at outside area. Further, this only paid to subordinate within the organisation. On the

other hand, she faces back pain and shoulder problem during climbing to mountain. So
organisation also gives relaxation for absence for few time period. Hence, by reviewing all point
it is to be noted that Anna is just employee in photographer company which is just liable for their
fix remuneration at the end of the month.
The argument relates to bonus and reimbursement is also indicated that Anna and max
relationship is just based on employment contractual term where both party argues to each other
regarding payment.
(b). Employer have to pay her for the period she refused to travel for work.
In this case, as employer side management has paid already to Anna $500. But she argues
that such amount paid by management for their the best work performance and she refuse to go
outside area for photo shoot. But after some time he decided self for go outside from local area.
Therefore, It is to be noted that it is decided by higher authority that any amount paid by them is
incentive or reimbursement. So that if management paid $500 as reimbursement amount then it
will be treats as same. In addition, higher authority is not liable to paid any amount if they paid
already and employee has not right to determined any amount nature. Therefore, employer is not
required to paid for go outside for photography purpose. Apart from this, management should
focus on employee work performance and they should gives incentive also for best work
performance with efficiency manner. In this case, Marion shoot photo from which cannot be
perform by everyone with similar manner. So for this duty he is the eligible for more
remuneration as bonus.
In this case, employer also argue that, they have already paid in previous month of $500
as a bonus for their good work performance and clearly state that authority will not be paid for
meals and travelling expenses so it is suffered to organisation self. Therefore, photography field
required to take shoot at different place so they are obligated to visit different place. So this
expenses is common which organisation should bear for operate their business well because it
gives profit to enterprise. Hence, higher authority should paid to remuneration expense for their
employee visit for operation work.
(c). Max has breached any contractual duty in relation to her injury
In this case, it is the duty of Max who is employer of Anna that specified every term in
front of their employee. Further, management of Creative Juices Pty. Ltd. is to be specified about
every term and condition regarding legal employment agreement. Therefore, authority should be

specified while giving $500 to Anna. Failure of proper discloser arise confusion in Anna mind.
On the other hand, it is also employer responsibilities to make policy regarding safety during
work. As well as they should also provide safety tools and equipment as their need for being
safety from their operation. It also to be noted that employment act also specified that every
employer is required to paid reimbursement as equal to expenses arisen during work operation.
Management should clearly specify every term with fair manner. In this condition, authority
gives statement suddenly that amount deposit of $500 which is bonus for their good work. But
Anna spend it as reimbursement. This mistake has arisen because non specified of term with
proper manner by responsible authority.
On the other hand, there are vicarious liabilities has arisen because it's a duty of employer
to protect the interest of employee from hazardous work operation. In this case, Max just give
verbal communicate for take care with properly during photo shoot but actually any organisation
policy has not existed for safety instruction as well as enterprise has not carrying any tool for
safeguarding to their employee for such type of hazardous activities. Hence, it also contractual
employer which has stated in employment legislation.
CONCLUSION
Conclusion of whole report state that two different assignment has based on case study
which link to organisation employee. Further, every worker has right to protect himself from
unfair practice. Every employer is obligated to followed every legislation which is relates to
industrial law otherwise, there will be whole organisation will be liable in legal proceeding. On
the other, workplace law plays vital role within the UK territory which has applied on every
organisation as condition described in legislation. Apart from this, it also contained suggestion
which organisation has to followed for safeguarding itself from any future liabilities.