Home > Employment Law

Employment Law

Question: A critical oversight into the development of unfair dismissal.

Answer: Before the departure from the common law, the actions in relation to unfair dismissal were mainly in favour of the employer, as they didn’t have to justify their reasons. In 1964, government...

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 76% | Course: Employment Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2468 | References: Yes | Date written: November, 2012 | Date submitted: January 05, 2014 | Coursework ID: 826

Question: Part I: Employment Tribunal Visit (1000 words)

Part II: Employment Tribunal Procedure (1000 words)
Toby Washington was employed as a research scientist by Chemlabs plc. Mr. Washington was dismissed summarily by Chemlabs plc following an investigation into allegations of theft. The investigation into Mr. Washington’s conduct was carried out by senior management in a thorough and professional manner and in accordance with the appropriate procedural requirements. The management uncovered firm evidence that Mr. Washington had committed gross misconduct as defined by the company’s disciplinary procedures, the sanction for which is instant dismissal. During the disciplinary hearing Mr. Washington stated that that he was being falsely accused for raising concerns about the procedure Chemlabs uses for disposing of hazardous waste materials. He asked Chemlabs if it wanted the issue to be reported to the relevant authorities or made public.

Chemlabs plc believe that any complaint against them is wholly without merit. It has no record of Mr. Washington ever raising concerns about the disposal of hazardous waste and it believes that Mr. Washington is motivated by the prospect of extracting a financial settlement from the company. Chemlabs plc is concerned that, notwithstanding the apparent weakness of a potential claim, Mr. Washington’s claim may cause unwanted publicity and unnecessary bureaucracy for the company.

Advise Chemlabs plc. on Employment Tribunal procedures should Mr. Washington complain to a tribunal. How can the company prevent the case proceeding to a full hearing and explain the advantages and disadvantages of the different options available to them in this respect. The company also seek advice on how to minimise adverse publicity for the company should the case proceed to a Tribunal. Please note, this assignment requires you to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of Employment Tribunal procedure and not the substantive law on unfair dismissal.

Mark - 72
Coursework 1 - Employment Law (Year 3)

Answer: Part 1 – Facts Mrs Arnold was looking to bring a claim against her former employer, Rosol Limited, in relation to a breach of contract amounting to unpaid wages and a redundancy...

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 72% | Course: Employment Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2571 | References: Yes | Date written: November, 2016 | Date submitted: February 15, 2017 | Coursework ID: 1003

Question: ‘It is becoming increasingly easy for ex-employers to ensure that their ex-employees do not disclose or otherwise abuse any sensitive information belonging to the ex-employer. This is so even where the contractual relationship ends following a fundamental breach.’

Critically evaluate the above statement.

Answer: If an ex-employer wishes to ensure there is no disclosure or abuse of any sensitive information by an ex-employee, he could either rely on a “garden leave” clause, the implied duty of...

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 69% | Course: Employment Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 5525 | References: Yes | Date written: February, 2005 | Date submitted: October 14, 2008 | Coursework ID: 88

Question: Answer the following problem question:

Potsdam Mansion is a hotel and conference centre owned and operated by Potsdam Mansion Hotels Ltd. The manager is William.

Frederick is employed as a part-time gardener and handyman by Potsdam Mansion for two days a week, for which he is paid £200 per week, after deductions for tax and National Insurance. He is often asked to work extra days to carry out specific tasks and he is paid a daily rate of £100 per day gross for this extra work. Last month William asked Frederick to reduce the height of three leylandii trees in the grounds by nine feet. The trees were about twenty-seven feet tall. This was an extra job, expected to last one day. Frederick decided to carry out the job using a ladder resting, unsecured, against each tree while he worked. This was a dangerous thing to do, and he fell, injuring himself very severely.

When their regular hotel receptionist went on maternity leave three years ago, Potsdam Mansion approached the Cheap & Cheerful Recruitment Agency Ltd (Cheap & Cheerful) to find them a temporary receptionist. Cheap & Cheerful sent along Elizabeth, who has worked there ever since as the original receptionist decided not to return to work after having her baby. For three years Elizabeth has had a contract with Cheap & Cheerful stating, among other things:

(a) That she is not an employee of Cheap & Cheerful;

(b) That she must obey all reasonable instructions of the client as if she were the client’s employee; and

(c) That she has no obligation to accept any position offered to her by Cheap & Cheerful, however, if she refuses, they will terminate their arrangement with her.

Each week, Elizabeth gets William to sign a worksheet confirming that she has worked her required hours, and she presents that to Cheap & Cheerful, who pay her a week in arrears. Cheap & Cheerful then invoice Potsdam Mansion for that sum plus their 12% agency fee. Potsdam Mansion has now decided it would be cheaper to employ a receptionist directly and told Cheap & Cheerful that Elizabeth’s services were no longer required.

Although Potsdam Mansion employs six permanent staff to wait at table in the restaurant, when they have large functions on they require additional staff. William has a list of forty local workers who he can call on as casual waiters when needed. Henry is among these, and during the three years he has worked for them on average for one day a week, although this means that in some weeks he has worked on two or three consecutive days and in other weeks he has done no work at all. Henry recently had an argument with William over his pay, as a result of which William told Henry that he would get no more work at the hotel.

Advise Potsdam Mansion Hotels Ltd as to whether or not it could liable to Frederick, Elizabeth and Henry on the basis that they are employees of the company.


Course code: LW70061E
University of West London School of Law

Module Title: Employment Law, MA Human Resource Management, Masters degree.

COURSEWORK – Assignment 1
Academic Year 2013 – 2014

Answer: Response to Potsdam Mansion Limited This response will look at the individual circumstances of three different staff members of Potsdam Mansion Limited, and outline the extent of the liabilities of each case...

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 67% | Course: Employment Law | Year: Graduate | Words: 1663 | References: Yes | Date written: December, 2013 | Date submitted: January 04, 2014 | Coursework ID: 831

You work as an associate legal adviser at the practice of Mancer and Sahdow. There are
currently a number of files on your desk which require your urgent attention.
File 1
Gillian Hitchen is 32 year old, a divorced mother with three young children. She has been
working in the factory at Segar textiles for the last three years. To boost her Income, 6 months ago, she also took on casual work as a "Singing telegram" lady who does an exotic dance and sings a greeting at birthday parties and other celebrations.
As Gillian is a rather attractive and very sociable lady, she earns good money doing this
second job, and she regularly tells friends about the "goings-on* at parties she attends. She is also well known at Segars for being a bit of a flirt, and she has had brief affairs with several male employees younger than herself.
Last week, there was a leaving party for Tracy, one of Gillian's friends at Segar. This party was held in the company social club one evening after the day shift had finished working. At one point during the evening, Gillian was walking down the dark corridor towards the toilets, when she heard a voice behind her say "Hi there, busty", and two hands grabbed her bottom and squeezed hard. This turned out to be Terry Tudor, a not very handsome technician, whose advances Gillian had rejected a few days before
Although this incident was not seen or heard by anyone else, Gillian now says that she found the experience deeply upsetting. She decided to go and see the Company personnel manager the next day to complain. However, he simply told Gillian not to be a silly girl and to just accept that under party conditions .people will get a bit frisky and over-familiar.
Gillian is now seeking your advice. You need to write a letter to her, to explain The legal
situation, indicating whether or not she has any basis for a claim against Segar textiles, and if so, what remedies are available to her.
You have been invited to be a guest speaker at the next meeting of the local Law society.
The topic will be the recently introduced Employment Equality (Religion or Belief)
Regulations 2003 .The detail of your brief is as follows :
Prepare brief notes for a presentation which will:
i) Outline the steps which employers need to take in order to meet the requirements of these regulations
ii) Explain how you would judge the effectiveness of these regulations, and the systems and procedures for their enforcement
Note - in your notes, you should take account of the implications of these regulations for
Human resources management and the need for employers to manage a diverse workforce in a
positive sense

File 3
Until two months ago, Jim Jones was a machine operator at Bogley Nuts and Bolts. He was employed there on regular repeating temporary contracts, each of which lasted three months.
There was then a gap of approximately one month between contracts. In total, Jim has worked for Bogieys for two and a half years.
One day, on arriving at work, Jim told his supervisor, Ken Keenan, that he had just won
£10,000 on a scratch card, and that he would shortly be booking a great holiday for himself. At lunchtime, Jim was late back from his meal break. Ken noticed that Jim was laughing rather loudly, his speech was slurred, and he smelt strongly of beer. Ken quickly called two security staff, who escorted Jim to the office of Chris Wision, the Personnel Manager. Chris told Jim that coming to work under the influence of drink amounted to gross misconduct Therefore, he would have to be summarily dismissed, and he should leave the premises immediately It is now two months since Jim left BogSey s. and he has not yet received any pay in lieu of notice. You need to write a letter to Jim advising him on any possible claim(s) against the company in relation to his termination of employment and the lack of payment in lieu of notice. You also need to comment about any possible remedies available to Jim where particular claims can be established.

Answer: FILE 1 Dear: Ms Hitchen I am writing to you regarding your present situation. Below I will look at discrimination. Under current provisions, it is unlawful to discriminate against an employee or...

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 67% | Course: Employment Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2882 | References: Yes | Date written: March, 2008 | Date submitted: April 18, 2009 | Coursework ID: 478

Question: The measure of success of any law of the termination of employment is the extent to which re-employment is attained where appropriate. By this measure, the law of both wrongful dismissal and unfair dismissal must be judged a failure.

Critically discuss the above statements.

Answer: When the Industrial Relations Act 1971 introduced a right to claim unfair dismissal, it filled a sorry gap in the common law. Unlike civil law systems, the courts had not qualified the...

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 66% | Course: Employment Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 600 | References: Yes | Date written: Not available | Date submitted: October 13, 2008 | Coursework ID: 67

Question: Discuss the role of law in the regulation of the employment relationship in Britain.

Answer: The law in this country has played a significant role in the development of industrial relations, and until the last quarter of the 19th century, it was mainly used to control the...

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 65% | Course: Employment Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2519 | References: Yes | Date written: March, 2002 | Date submitted: February 17, 2009 | Coursework ID: 275

Question: “Although the Suzen decision has been described as involving a shift of emphasis or a clarification of the law, nothing was said in Suzen which casts doubt on the correctness of the interpretation of the Directive in… earlier decisions… The importance of Suzen [has], I think, been overstated”.

Analyse the law relating to transfers of undertakings. To what extent do you agree with the statement of Mummery LJ?

Answer: At common law, a contract of employment was a personal contract between the employer and the employee; when that relationship ceased, the contract of employment came to an end. Thus if a...

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 65% | Course: Employment Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 3072 | References: Yes | Date written: February, 2006 | Date submitted: October 11, 2008 | Coursework ID: 21

High Flyer Ltd (HFL) employed Jenny Forbes (JF) in a senior sales executive role. She commenced in employment on 06 January 2003. JF has a written contract of employment and was given a letter of offer when she commenced. JF’s contractual notice period is 6 weeks and her age is 48.
JF obtains regular pay increases against her basic salary, which for the financial year ending March 2013 was £36,100.
However, a substantial part of her remuneration package is obtained through bonuses and allowances as follows:
- A discretionary loyalty bonus of £6,000 per annum, which is always paid on on or after 15 December each year. In her letter of offer this is described as being “subject to the employee being in employment on the due date” (“the Loyalty Bonus”).
- A discretionary sales bonus, which is calculated as a percentage of her monthly sales and paid quarterly in arrears “subject to the employee’s continued satisfactory performance in their assigned sales role” (“the Sales Bonus”).
- A contractual monthly allowance of £1,500 per calendar month, which is paid monthly in advance and expressed to “cover expenses and inconvenience associated with the sales process” (“the Expenses Allowance”).
- A contractual London area allowance to compensate for the additional cost of living in the capital of £200 per calendar month paid in advance (“the London Area Allowance”).

The various bonuses mean that JF’s ‘on-target earnings’ for the financial year ending March 2013 amounted to £77,880.

HFL’s policy on sick leave is that the company will pay 30 days per annum (pro-rata) at full salary and another 30 days per annum (pro-rata) at half salary. There are notification requirements, which include self-reporting for absences of less than a week and GP certification for absences longer than a working week.

There is a ‘Flexible Working Clause’ in JF’s contract of employment in the following terms:
“You may be required to work in any location which High Flyers Limited may in its discretion instruct you to work and it is a condition of your employment that you work flexibly in your job role to assist High Flyers Limited to achieve its stated goals including (but not limited to) customer satisfaction and high levels of product sales.”

On 01 April 2013, HFL announce to sales staff (including JF) that due to the prevailing economic climate and after a careful costing exercise, HFL will be reducing the Expenses Allowance to £650 per calendar month, with immediate effect. There was an additional announcement that there would be no increase in base salary for any staff except the board level directors.
In early May 2013, JF wrote to her line manager at HFL, Bill Smith (BS) in the following terms:
“I am not happy about this proposal as I often spend large sums in obtaining my sales and feel the company should meet those costs.”

HFL did not respond to JF but rather proceed to reduce the Expenses Allowance payment for May 2013.
In late August 2013, BS called JF into a meeting room to discuss her performance. During the meeting BS concedes that JF is correct when she indicates that her sales performance is above average among her colleagues but BS contended that she has sold better in the past. BS also raised the issue of JF’s sickness absence to which JF responded that she had not breached HFL’s sickness absence policy either in terms of reporting her illness nor in terms of exhausting her contractual entitlement to sick leave. BS reminded JF that she had responsibility (on behalf of HFL) for a very lucrative and important sales area. Therefore, BS argued HFL expected higher than average sales within her area. JF stated that she has always done her level best to deliver sales for HFL and achieve higher payments for the Sales Bonus. BS did not ask and JF did not explain the reason for her absences. However, JF agreed that less sickness absence would see better sales figures and promised to improve her attendance in the future.

The meeting concluded with BS stating that HFL is prepared to pay the discretionary Sales Bonus for the quarter ending July 2013 but that JF’s attendance would need to improve significantly. BS also reassures JF that no formal action would be taken or recorded by HFL.
In late November 2013, HFL announced that the London Area Allowance would be halved to £100 per calendar month. Again JF wrote an email to BS to complain about this change to terms and conditions but received no reply.

On 09 December 2013, BS called JF to another informal meeting where her sickness absence was again raised. After an initial improvement in JF’s attendance in September and October 2013, JF had called in sick 7 times in November and early December 2013 with the number of days totalling 11 days off. This time BS is concerned about a fall in JF’s sales figures that has taken JF below average for sales executives for the quarter ending November 2013. BS stated that he wanted to consult JF about her taking a different sales area for HFL, which on average produced 10 per cent less sales. JF protested vocally as she is very concerned that there may be a corresponding effect on her capacity to earn the Sales Bonus. JF contended that the economic climate is causing some of her drop in sales and in any event the October quarter is only 10 per cent down on the August quarter. JF asked to know what the sales figures are across the business but BS responded that he could not reveal this information due to the sensitivities of her colleagues. JF also reminded BS that she has complied fully with HFL sick leave policy and still had not exhausted her entitlement to full pay. BS did not deny these points. BS left the meeting on the basis that he will consider JF’s points and get back to her.

BS emailed JF two days after the meeting on the morning of 11 December 2013, setting out a proposal that her sales area be swapped with that of her colleague John Newboys who recently joined HFL as a Sales Executive with effect from the beginning of 2014.

JF wrote back the next day and resigned her employment citing the continual erosion of her financial package.

JF consults HFL’s Human Resources Department about her final payment. HFL HR respond saying that salary will paid up and until her date of resignation but that neither the Sales Bonus for the November quarter nor the Loyalty Bonus for 2013 would be included in the final payment.
Later that day, JF concerned about her continuing bouts of poor health consults her GP who informs her that she has been suffering morning sickness due to the fact that she is pregnant and her expected date of delivery is 21 July 2014.

The following week JF telephoned HFL HR Department to complain about the non-payment of her allowance package and mentions her pregnancy.

BS rang JF later in the same day to asked JF to re-consider her resignation and to state that she could have her old position back with HFL subject to satisfactory performance. JF refused the offer saying she could not work for HFL any more.

JF consults you as to the claims that she may have against HFL and what sums may be recoverable from them. Also JF asks you to consider in your advice any arguments that HFL may have to defend JF’s potential claims. Please include references to relevant case law and statute (where appropriate).

Assume the date of your advice is 06 January 2014.

Answer: This question relates to the rights of Jenny not to be unfairly dismissed and the protection provided by the current law to that effect. The advice to Jenny will be based upon...

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 64% | Course: Employment Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2610 | References: Yes | Date written: January, 2014 | Date submitted: November 04, 2014 | Coursework ID: 888

Question: Is the difference between 'employee', 'worker' and 'self-employed' persons made sufficiently clear in UK employment law?

Answer: The distinction between the notions of ‘employee’, ‘worker’ and ‘self-employed’ persons is not sufficiently clear in the UK employment law. This problem is due to: 1) lack of statutory guidance in differentiating...

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 64% | Course: Employment Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2836 | References: Yes | Date written: Not available | Date submitted: August 08, 2010 | Coursework ID: 616

Page 1 of 212 »

New user?

Registering is fast
and easy

Welcome back

Gain access

  1. Register with us
  2. Pay for instant access
  3. Or submit 3 pieces
    of your work for
    free access


Adobe Reader is required to access all coursework & essays. (pdf)
PayPal handles payments on our behalf. All major credit cards and currencies accepted.
A PayPal account is not nessesary.