The Buckley Lj On Employment Law

There are many different functions and roles of law in the business society. When describing employment law, there is a broad area that governs how employers interact with their employees, former employees and applicants for employment. These laws and regulations are not meant to be described in a short paper. They are detailed laws that require application to an employee’s specific situation and should be discussed at length to ensure the correct interpretation of the regulation. As an office manager that was put in charge of the Human Resources department of my organization, I was thrust into a world of complex laws that took many hours to

Walsh, D. J. (2013). Employment law for human resource practice (4th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage

Bennett-Alexander, D., & Hartman, L. (2009). Employment law for business. (6 ed., pp. 247-249). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Bennet-Alexander, Dawn D., Hartman, Laura P. (2003) Employment Law for Business, 4th edition. The McGraw-Hill Companies

Bennett-Alexander, D. D., & Hartman, L. P. (2001). Employment Law for Business (III ed.) Boston, Massachusetts: Mc Graw-Hill Primis.

Many consider ads to be most influential type of rhetoric. City dwellers in the United States view nearly 5000 ads per day and these highly impact the processes of purchase, decision making, and even voting (Johnson). A well constructed ad has the ability to change laws. An example of an attempt to amend established legislature is The Employee Rights Act (“The Bill”). Through the uses of proper circulation in response to exigency, the built credentials, and form of the ad, viewers may be persuaded to vote in favor of the bill.

Throughout the progression of time labor has shifted from once being manual trade work to becoming computerized office work. Hence, several acts came to light to protect employees from unfair treatment at work. One of the most vital relationships in any work environment is the employment relationship. Budd and Bhave (2008) explain, “the employment relationship is the connection between employees and employers through which individuals sell their labor” (p.2). There are various types of work contracts that a number of businesses use when hiring their employees. For example, the legal contract which states the legal responsibilities and rights for both the employer and employee (Nankervis, Baird, Coffey, Shields 2001, p.12) then there is the

Although Lord Phillips came to the correct conclusion, he did not provide a coherent structure for courts to follow when making future decisions., his analysis is useful for cases with very similar features to this one, but will be of limited use to cases where the circumstances are different, this will of course be most cases and therefore he should have provided more guidance, this is particularly evident when looking at the features which he thought made their relationship closer than that of an employer and employees. There is no discernible logic which links the two factors together, and it is unlikely that a court will be able to infer from those two features a common rule which can be applied to other situations.

Many employment rights are highly dependent on the ability to establish the status of an employee. However there is no useful statutory definition on ‘employee’. The closest definition can be found in the Employment Right Acts 1996 (ERA 1996), section 230(1), but it is in a form of a circular, and thus it is of little help. Therefore, it is left to the courts to define what is an employee. Over the years, a number of tests have been developed to help the courts to make judgement. The employment status test identifies that, the employer has an obligation to provide work for the employee and there must be a reciprocate obligation by the employee. Failing these, a person is unlikely be classed as an employee (Bebbington Palmer). However, the application of these tests is not always easy or straightforward.

In 1996, The Employment Rights Act was introduced, an employee was defined therein as an individual who works under contracts of employment, however it fails to define what is meant by a ‘contract of service’. A retrospective view of the UK indicates that there is no generic denotation of an ‘employee’ created through legislative processes. It is imperative to note the court is the major determinant of the status of the parties in an employment relationship. The court therefore put together a series of tests to regulate employment contracts which involves an application of diverse common law tests distinguished by Simon Deakin and Gillian Morris in 2000. The primary classes of those tests are;

Each and every day business throughout the United States are met with challenging situations that are centered around labor and employment law. As the director of human resources for Company X, I have been tasked with analyzing three situations that may or may not violate any federal acts. The federal acts that will be considered are the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Each given situation will be reviewed and analyzed to determine if any violations of these acts have occurred.

The main objective of labour law as we know see today is based on the notion of securing justice for employees, founded on the assumption that an imbalance of power exists in regards to the employment relationship. As we see the increasing establishment of profit maximising enterprises expanding themselves on a global scale, those who hold managerial positions are becoming somewhat more inclined to use their new found ‘power’ in a way which houses the potential to exploit employees who are seen to have less of an influence in comparison to the company which they work for . It is for this reason that the employment relationship between two parties ought to be properly regulated to ensure companies do not take advantage of their employees, a

There are many aspects to investigate in order to find out if unfair dismissal law holds the balance between employers and employees. This essay will not aim to discuss all the relevant aspects but will only focus on a few key areas, namely the eligibility to claim, procedural fairness, definition of ‘some

Employment is how we have provided for ourselves and our families for centuries; however, the structure of said employment has not remained the same. As society evolved, the laws and regulations surrounding employment and employee’s rights have also progressed. Employment used to be a simple hierarchy of the boss and their employees. This boss would be the one in charge of the business and all aspects of their employee’s employment. However, employment is no longer this simple. As society moved towards a culture of big business and employment at will, employers have altered this traditional business hierarchy. Today the line of what a “supervisor” (previously the “boss”) is and what is simply another co-worker is blurred as employers have started to move away from having a “supervisor” to having “managers on duty”. With this shift in the business hierarch, the question of employer liability also became blurred as employers denied responsibility for harassment that was occurring in the workplace because the harasser was not a “supervisor” in the traditional sense. Maetta Vance v. Ball State University was the landmark Supreme Court case that looked at what constituted a “supervisor” in the new age of business, and set the precedent for future employer liability for harassment cases.

The Cunningham case examined whether the plaintiff, who sought to invoke personal grievances procedures, was an employee or an independent contractor*. Only had the plaintiff been an employee, such remedies were available.* The judges unanimously held that he was a contractor. The reasons set out in coming to this conclusion sheds light on whether the Koia case interpreted fairly the Cunningham’s court of Appeal decision. The Court of Appeal established that, not limited to what was expressed in contract, all relevant circumstances and the operation of the contract were to be identified in determining one’s status of employment. Both Cooke P and Hardie