Solving Grievances and Disputes in the Workplace (Coursework Sample)

SOLVING GRIEVANCES AND DISPUTES IN THE WORKPLACE
Name:
Class:
Date:
Solving Grievances and Disputes in the workplace.
Assessment 2
Response 3
* It is a broad decision to seek for advice on matters employment before firing the employee (AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, LOCAL 308 v. Chicago Transit Authority, 2012). From the email you sent me, there are binding reasons to grant a dismissal (BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE v. United Transp. Union. 2014). However, the fundamental reasons don’t give an employer the right to sack the employees without following a fair and rational procedure (Chapman v. United Auto Workers Local. 2012). According to (Carney v. Mille, 2014), the grounds for sacking an employee may be due to their conduct, if they infringed a statutory law, redundancy, capability and other extensive reasons.
According to Deans v. Kennedy House, Inc. (2014), the present legal position in the fortitude of fairness is by following the correct procedures. The employers are expected to follow the disciplinary procedures before dismissing a worker (DR Horton, Inc. v. NLRB. 2013). Failure to follow the procedures results to unfair dismissal (Elgin v. Department of Treasury. 2012). The lack of following the stated procedures results to a breach of contract (Carney v. Miller. 2014). That gives the employee an opportunity to seek for an injunction or seek for damages (ENSIGN GROUP, INC. v. MAMMEN. 2015).
According to DEPT. OF NAVY v. Federal Labor Relations Authority (2012), the employees also have a procedure to follow when seeking for redress of a matter in the workstation. The process used by the employees to seek redress is referred to as a grievance procedure (Gauthier v. City of Cranston. 2014). In case the employer fails to follow an internal grievance may prompt the employee to seek redress in the employment tribunal (Green v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc.2012). According to (Chapman v. United Auto Workers Local. 2014), there is prove that the employer didn’t follow the due process before dismissing an employee, the amount payable by him to the worker may increase.
According to Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk (2013), the reason for the dismissal in this case is the conduct of an employee that cannot be termed as gross misconduct. In this case, the employer’s should issue him with a series of warning (Hollingsworth v. Perry. 2013). He should also ensure that he complies with the ACAS code in each process and at every stage (Green v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. 2012). The ACAS Code of Exercise on the procedures has stipulated guidelines that employees are expected to follow (IN THE MATTER OF CITY OF GARFIELD, 2014). The procedural fairness is regarded as the right of the employee in the course of penal or dismissal (Carney v. Miller. 2014).
According to ENSIGN GROUP, INC. v. MAMMEN (2015), the statute governing the operation of workstation discipline and complaints in the UK was formulated recently. The management of such concerns was shaped by the context of unfair dismissal law that was introduced in 1968. According to DEPT. OF NAVY v. Federal Labor Relations Authority (2012), there has been measure set aside to ensure that employees are not dismissed unfairly from their jobs. That has been achieved through the setting up of industrial tribunals to assist in solving disputes (DR Horton, Inc. v. NLRB. 2013).
Before dismissing an employee, the employer should meet the following threshold: the boss should enlighten the worker of accusations in a style that they can comprehend (Elgin v. Department of Treasury. 2012). Then, the employer should give the workers judicious time for them to respond to the accusations (Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical v. EEOC. 2012). He must also offer an opportunity to the employee to argue their cases during the proceedings (Green v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc.2012). During the proceeding, the worker has a right to be supported by another employee or a shop steward (Carney v. Miller. 2014). After the proceedings, the bosh should inform the worker of the decision of the disciplinary agreements preferably in a manner that the employee can comprehend (Green v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. 2012). There must be clear reasons incase the boss has decided to sack the employee. Lastly, the records of the punitive actions and reasons for the conclusions must be kept safe (BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE v. United Transp. Union. 2012).
According to Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk (2013), in the recent times, there have been a reduction of strike actions and there is notable upsurge in the number of assertions in the occupation tribunals. There has been a huge cost by the UK government in solving matters presented to the dispute resolve system (Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical v. EEOC. 2012). There have been concerns on actions that are used to handle discipline and complaints in the workstation (Hollie v. Teamsters Local Union. 2013). The government of UK is looking for more incentives so that the disputes between the employees and the employers can be handled in a domestic manner (BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE v. United Transp. Union. 2013)
The boss should also be well versed with the statutory removal and complaints processes in the Employment Act of 2002 (ENSIGN GROUP, INC. v. MAMMEN. 2015). The employees should be guided by the following three steps before effecting a dismissal. Failure to that, the dismissal is deemed unfair (Elgin v. Department of Treasury. 2012). In case the employer or employee failed to follow least processes, there would be a ten or fifty percent surge or decrease in terms of compensation (Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk. 2013). The main reason for this Act was to ensure that employers consider all internal dispute resolution mechanisms before making a tribunal claim (Deans v. Kennedy House, Inc. 2014).
According to DR Horton, Inc. v. NLRB (2013), there are consequences that the Mike Jacobs may encounter if he sacks Job. The worker must be able to raise a claim for the discharge within a period of three months of their termination of employment (IN THE MATTER OF CITY OF GARFIELD. 2014). In this case, the employee is expected to have worked for the company in a period of more than two years. Green v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc (2012) says if the job appeal to the dispute tribunal with the claims that his dismissal was done in a manner that was unfair, the resolution may pass that he may be awarded with the full unfair discharge award of £92,585 (Green v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. 2012). The value includes a compensation award of £ 14,250 and £78,335 that represent the basic award (MATTER OF PHILLIPS v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth. 2015). The cap on the compensatory reward is calculated as the lower of £78,335 or the gross pay for 52 weeks (Hollingsworth v. Perry. 2013). For the tenacity of the statutory cap, the gross pay excludes benefit-in-kind, discretionary bonuses, and pension contributions (Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical v. EEOC. 2012).
According to (Phillips v. UAW INTERNATIONAL. 2016), the 52 weeks gross pay included, he may also be awarded the median unfair discharge award of £ 6,955. The tribunal will base their reward for the unfair dismissal based on the worker’s salary at the date of dismissal and their ability in getting an alternative employment (Owens v. District of Columbia. 2013). In other words, the amount that may be granted to the employee is not certain or there is no limitation for the amount (ENSIGN GROUP, INC. v. MAMMEN. 2015). The employee can also claim that his rights has been violated and the employees have breached the employment contract forcing the worker to quit or resign and carry themselves as having been unfairly dismissed (Green v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. 2012).
There are those workers who have less than two years working experience, before they can be considered eligible to raise an unfair sacking claim (Smith v. VIRGIN ISLANDS TELEPHONE CORPORATION. 2014). However, there are exemptions to the aforementioned service prerequisite (Elgin v. Department of Treasury. 2012). The employees may benefit by being awarded by the tribunal an amount that has no limit. To avoid such a situation, the employees may consider taking into consideration the procedures outlined in the ACAS code (Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles. 2014). According to Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. Perez (2015), the employer also needs to observe the staffs conduct during the probation period. During this period the employee can have the opportunity of terminating the workers relationship easily (Phillips v. UAW INTERNATIONAL. 2016). He can also seek to extend the probation period with much ease (BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE v. United Transp. Union. 2014).
Polkey V. AE Dayton Services Ltd (1988) is a prominent UK case in the study of unfair sacking, which is now administered by the Employment Rights Act of 1996 (Gauthier v. City of Cranston. 2015). According to Smith v. VIRGIN ISLANDS TELEPHONE CORPORATION (2015), the fact of the case is that Mr. Polkey the driver of a van in four years in a company. He was called by the manager and he was fired on the spot (Green v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc.2012).
ENSIGN GROUP, INC. v. MAMMEN (2015) says that despite the employer not following due process, the judge ruled that a different outcome couldn’t have occurred in such a situation. According to Deans v. Kennedy House, Inc. (2014), the court held that the employer has a right to fire the employee without disciplinary procedures if he had underperformed and his warned and offered an opportunity for improvement (Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. Perez. 2015). Secondly, when the worker engages in delinquency are explored and given a hearing (Nyberg, D. 2013 p 406). Lastly, when the workers who are fired are given warnings and ...