International Labour Law

involves Amanda and one of her employees in Hare’s regarding the improper use of the company’s property. Hare’s delivery is known to be a courier company in Manchester and its assets like the delivery vans, trucks, and other equipment is therefore a private property of the company or the owner of the company. Again, Amanda, the newly appointed Managing Director of Hare’s reviewed drivers’ contracts of employment (COE) to find out that the company restricts the use of the vehicular transportations for their personal benefits, especially without the company owner’s consent.

In addition, it was stated in the contract that the vehicles used for job tasks should be delivered and returned to its designated storehouses where they would daily visit those warehouses to start their shift. On the contrary, Amanda realized that some drivers are violating this major regulation of Hare’s. She noticed that some drivers do not return the vans they use for work to its designated warehouse depots. Some even dare to use such vehicles for their personal advantage.

Amanda was able to trace one driver with a name of “Barry” who frequently does this violation of Hare’s company rules. What’s worse is that Amanda got to know that Barry’s supervisor is aware of the frequent incident that Barry secretly performs. This made Amanda really mad upon knowing that the supervisor tolerates the violation which was clearly stated in the employment contract. The worst part is that Barry damaged the van the last night when he met an accident on the road after picking up his son from its co-curricular football practice.

Consequently, the incident was reported to Amanda, which made her really infuriated with Barry’s misbehaviour. Amanda declared Barry’s suspension and she told him that she is even willing to dismiss him from working at Hare’s. Furthermore, the ABC union, which is the sole trade union of Hare delivery, took Barry’s side and demanded Amanda to allow Barry to get back to work with them as soon as possible. The ABC union even went to the extent of demanding the removal of Barry’s declaration or threat of dismissal.

Answer: Unfair dismissal is what should be called to Barry’s case if he was not given the right to defend oneself. Therefore, Amanda has to hear Barry’s side of the story before acquitting and imputing Barry from his misbehaviour and violation of Hare’s company rules. Again, it is commonsense that Barry should have consulted and reviewed his contract of employment to be responsible enough to take the consequences of his undesirable behaviour. Using other people’s property is unethical and is against the law.

The worst part is that Barry damaged the property which is not even his own; plus, he did not ask permission from anybody in the management or the owner of the company to use the van for his personal benefit. Thus, the written agreement of not using the company’s properties was agreed and signed in the written (COE) contract of employment. Meaning, what Barry did is an actual form of stealing and damage for the van which is not even his own. Moreover, Barry has to be penalized for that irresponsible behaviour.

Thus, it would be fair enough to punish such misconduct of Barry through suspension and dismissal. Evidences prove that Barry is aware of the company’s rule on returning and assuring the safety of the vehicles after working shift, for Barry agreed to sign the contract of employment. Therefore, his signature he would be liable to face any misconduct and violation from the rules that the company informed him. Amanda has more proof to serve as evidence to the misbehaviour since she could ask the Supervisor to act as the witness in the case of Barry’s clandestine use of the van for personal use and advantage.

According to ASLEF v Brady 2006 IRLR 576 Bill, it is fair to declare dismissal to an employee who has proven guilty of misconduct (S&J 2009). Moreover, UK Law encompasses the content of a (COE) contract of employment which describes clearly the employer-employee relationship. It also implicitly defines who the leader is and who the follower in the organization is as well. For instance, the employer as the leader of the company is expected to be treated with respect and to be followed. Otherwise, it is an option for the employer/ the manager to dismiss the deviant employee.

However, the leader of the organization, the manger, or the employer is also expected to give due respect to one’s employees and they should also think of the employees’ welfare as they are valued productive workers for the company (SF, 2009). Case #3 Amanda, after reviewing information regarding the activities of Hare’s Delivery and its employees, found out that the courier business is a very complicated and challenging business to run for it enhances competition among fellow service providers and delivery to satisfy consumers.

Amanda, facing several conflicts and handling Hare’s Delivery is having a hard time to concentrate and to focus on creating ways for Hare’s advancement. Instead of devising ways to improve the system and enhance the consumer quality of service that Hare renders, Amanda is currently preoccupied in dealing with the consistent resistance of the ABC union in the proposed policies and Hare’s management. She is busier now trying to provide a quick solution to the increase of attrition rate in the company and the prevalent misconduct of most employees at Hare’s.

Amanda then, thought of the quickest solution to dissolve and get rid of the major resistance occurring in Hare’s business. She immediately thought of derecognizing ABC as the sole trade union of Hare’s Delivery courier company. However, Amanda plans to make some changes in the system. She would still want a consultation session with employees though she prefers no re resistance from the group and this time, Amanda wants to appoint the representative/s among the group that she is going to create. Answer Articles 11 of the European Convention on Human rights declare the freedom of assembly and association in the workplace.

This shows that Amanda’s attempt to dissolve such free trade union is against the federal UK Law (TS, 2009). The Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (ASLEF) in UK for instance, had the group think that every worker has the right to join a trade union and even to choose its own members and representative/s. ASLEF also believes that trade unions created are for serving the purpose of promoting the well-being of its members and also to promote the unity of the group think with shared values and views on social and political matters (TS, 2009).

So to speak from the examples aforementioned ASLEF and UK are both congruent in terms of valuing the significance of creating trade unions in every company. It is a medium for the freedom of expression and rights to belong in a certain organization or association of the group where they can discuss their grievances, opinions on some social and political issues inside and outside the workplace, and share ideas or proposals on how to troubleshoot and provide solutions to the current conflict arising in some certain aspects of the business or company.

Going back to the case of Amanda, trying to dissolve ABC union, it is therefore illegal to carry out such plan for the company has been recognizing the union for several years, creating a psychological contract between the employer and the employee that forming trade unions is welcomed and recognized and therefore, should not suppressed. On Convention 98, concerning the application of the principle of the right to organize and to bargain collectively is the major theme and discussion of the delegates.

Article 1 in this provision states that the “workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment International Labour Organization. (2009). ” Moreover, the right to organize and collective bargaining convention Bill, 1949 (No. 98) purports to safeguard the rights of the employees to fight anti-union discrimination (International Labour Organization, 2009). Thus, the convention is a proof that forming trade unions are legal for it promotes collective bargaining and prevents intrusion of both employer and employee (International Labour Organization, 2009).

Conclusion The current UK law discussing the working time states that working hours should not max 48 hours a week. If it is not stated in the contract of employment, the employee may have the right to disagree from the proposal of an employer to work for shorter or longer hours from the average requirement to work 8 hours a day. Going back to the case of Amanda in Hare’s Delivery, as the managing director of the company, she demands that the employees shall work linger hours during January to February since the company is loaded with activities during the mentioned months.

It is more considered illegal to demand longer working hours for the employees without providing extra overtime pay. And since the ABC Union and the previous management have agreed to work on the average 8-hour period, it is unfair to change the agreed psychological and written contract between the employer and the employee (Hare’s management and ABC union members) (WR, 2009). In brief, Amanda should not make abrupt decision without getting conformation from her employees regarding the compensation and length of their hours of work.

Thus, acting upon violating the agreed written and psychological breach of contract between the employer and the employee is punishable by the federal UK law. Apparently then, it would be fair enough to punish a misconduct of a driver named Barry through suspension and dismissal. Evidences prove that Barry is aware of the company’s rule on returning and assuring the safety of the vehicles after working shift, for Barry agreed to sign the contract of employment. Therefore, his signature he would be liable to face any misconduct and violation from the rules that the company informed him.

Amanda has more proof to serve as evidence to the misbehaviour since she could ask the Supervisor to act as the witness in the case of Barry’s clandestine use of the van for personal use and advantage. According to ASLEF v Brady 2006 IRLR 576 Bill, it is fair to declare dismissal to an employee who has proven guilty of misconduct. Moreover, UK Law encompasses the content of contract of employment which describes clearly the employer-employee relationship. It also implicitly defines who the leader is and who the follower in the organization is as well.

For instance, the employer as the leader of the company is expected to be treated with respect and to be followed. Otherwise, it is an option for the employer to dismiss the deviant employee. However, employer is also expected to give due respect to one’s employees and they should also think of the employees’ welfare as they are supposed to be valued as productive workers who provides gain and profit for the company. Article 11 of the European Convention on Human rights declare the freedom of assembly and association in the workplace (TS, 2009).

This shows that Amanda’s attempt to dissolve such free trade union is against the federal UK Law. The Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (ASLEF) in UK for instance, had the group think that every worker has the right to join a trade union and even to choose its own members and representative/s. ASLEF also believes that trade unions created are for serving the purpose of promoting the well-being of its members and also to promote the unity of the group think with shared values and views on social and political matters.

So to speak from the examples aforementioned ASLEF and UK are both congruent in terms of valuing the significance of creating trade unions in every company. It is a medium for the freedom of expression and rights to belong in a certain organization or association of the group where they can discuss their grievances, opinions on some social and political issues inside and outside the workplace, and share ideas or proposals on how to troubleshoot and provide solutions to the current conflict arising in some certain aspects of the business or company.

List of References

International Labour Organization. International Labour Law. [online] available from http://actrav. itcilo. org/actrav-english/telearn/global/ilo/law/lablaw. htm [accessed 19 February 2009] Jefferson, M. (2005) Employment Legislation: Just in force, soon to be in force and forthcoming [online] available from <http://www. industriallawsociety. org. uk/papers/jefferson. htm> [accessed 18 February 2009] Solidarity Federation. Health & Safety at Work: An Anarcho-syndicalist approach [online] available from <http://www. solfed. org. uk/booklets/health-and-safety-at- work. htm> [accessed 18 February 2009]