Dismissal From Work For Jeremy example essay topic

What happened in the case of Jeremy, a computer systems operator was highly inappropriate not only according to the British and international laws but also from the point of business ethics. Jeremys assistant Lucinda had violated the law two times when firing Jeremy without notice and discriminating against his old age. The assistant manager had also misrepresented the legal information regarding the dismissal program at the company and therefore also violated the employment law. In the following essay I am going to speak about the legal aspects of the case, present various findings and legal framework applicable to the case as well as express my personal opinion and recommendations on the given matter. Description and legal framework: According to the British employment laws Jeremy was treated unfairly. The only reasons why an employer can dismiss a person legally are shown below; other reasons are considered unethical and oftentimes illegal.

The person treated unfairly can claim unfair dismissal (Mauer, 2002) Reasons for dismissal: 1. Employee Abilities. a. Qualifications. If a person allowed perform the given job. This reason does not apply to Jeremy who worked at the company for 12 years (according to the case) and if unqualified would not have been kept there that long. b. Incompetence.

Is the employee able to do the given task? The company has to train employees to remove incompetence. c. Health. Does the person possess sickness that prevents him / her from doing a good job? If there cannot be made any accommodation, the person should be dismissed. 2.

Conduct. The general behavior of an employee with regard to the organizational goals. a. Theft, corruption, bribes, hacking. Did not apply to Jeremy b. Drugs, alcohol, abusing conduct at work. Still did not apply to Jeremy. c.

Absenteeism spread of confidential information. Did not apply to Jeremy d. Inappropriate appearance at work (Pederson, 2001). e. Inappropriate conduct with co-workers or outside the company that mars the company image 3.

Corporate Redundancy. When people have to be dismissed, a fair method of selection must exist. In other words an employer cannot fire a person without any reason. The most common method of redundancy is last in first out, thus dismissing the newly hired people first.

It should be noted if unfair redundancy practice exists; an employer is breaking the law (Luke, 2001). 4. Law Requirements. This part is applicable to international workers who work in Britain.

If the visa expires and the person cannot extend it or obtain a new one, she / he should be dismissed (Pederson, 2001). Unlike in Jeremys case, in dismissing decisions there should be elements of fairness present. The Employment Tribunal would consider some of the following points: 1. Was the employee given a chance to explain his position in fair treatment? 2. Was there any evidence for dismissal used?

3. Did an employee get a chance to speak with a Trade Union official? 4. Were all employees treated in the same way?

5. Was an employee good work history considered? 6. Did the employee have an effective right of appeal against the decision?

10. Did the dismissal procedure differ from the dismissal procedures in the past? If there were present any negative answers to the given questions one can consider unfair dismissal treatment and discrimination as a derivative from that (Pederson, 2001). Analysis: Although there is no legal definition of racial, age and sexual harassment, it is commonly accepted that behavior that falls within the scope is quite varied, including physical, verbal and nonverbal conduct. The conduct must be unwanted by the recipient and used, to the recipient's detriment, as a basis for dismissal decisions. Racial and sexual harassment fall under discrimination legislation and therefore the employer is liable for the acts of its employees in the course of their employment.

It is not always clear whether an act of harassment should be regarded as 'in the course of employment (Blum, 2001). If the harasser is acting in a supervisory role, his or her act of harassment is more likely to be deemed to be in the course of employment than if the harasser is in a subordinate position (Mauer, 2002). It should be noted that behavior of Lucinda is defined as discrimination based on age. Her statement that Jeremy was useless and that he should give up his position for younger people was the only justified reason for his dismissal. Having understood that what she said was discriminating against Jeremy, Lucinda added that he was incompetent. It is rather silly to assume that the company would tolerate Jeremys incompetence for twelve years of his employment.

Furthermore, Jeremys dismissal indeed differed from the usual dismissal procedure (albeit not mentioned in the case, I assume that), that once again causes the reader to think why was he treated differently? Jeremy was directly discriminated by her supervisor Lucinda when a blatant statement of his dismissal was made. At the same time, Jeremy has been indirectly dismissed, should there is a trend that all workers over certain age are dismissed from the company. Another aspect of untimely dismissal from work for Jeremy might have been certain economic reasons that the company was trying to achieve. In the past the US courts have faced several cases that dealt with untimely dismissal of senior citizen. The primary reason why the older workers were prematurely dismissed was monetary: the workers were dismissed just prior to their retirement age, thus removing the obligation to pay the proper pensions to their employees.

Although the case did not speak about the true reasons and the pension obligations the company had before Jeremy, one should not ignore such important reason in company evaluation. If an employer breaches an employee's contract of employment in a fundamental way, which effectively indicates that he or she no longer intends to be bound by its terms, the employee may be entitled to resign and to regard him or herself as having been forced to take that step in response to the employer's behavior (Mauer, 2002). This is known as constructive dismissal. What we see in the case with Jeremy is another workers misrepresentation of the law and unwillingness to explain to Jeremy true ways of dealing with the unfair treatment (Pederson, 2001). From the legal point of view Jeremy still possesses all the legal protection and is entitled to make an unfair dismissal complaint to an employment tribunal in the same way as if the employer had expressly dismissed him or her for objecting to a variation of the agreed terms and conditions of employment.

Again, the right to make an employment tribunal complaint on these grounds is subject to a one year qualifying period of continuous service. The fact that Jeremy was not given a notice also violates the employment laws of Great Britain. Conclusion and Recommendations: Jeremy should by no means leave without ever striving to bring justice at the work place of this company. First of all he should contact the Employment tribunal and tell the whole story.

If nothing is done, he should not be afraid of suing the company for violating his human rights as well as engaging in misrepresentation of information and unfair employee treatment at the work place. The fact that Jeremy had been a useful asset to the company for the past twelve years indeed proves the fact that the statement passed by Lucinda was prejudiced. The fact that he is a senior employee does not necessarily make him incompetent in the eyes of assistant manager, and her statement that he should allow the young block to do his job and that he was useless are nothing but discriminatory remarks that can possibly be sexually discriminatory when passed from the personal point of view of female co-worker. Further more, the investigation should assess the dismissal history and pay much attention to the outstanding pension obligations the company was bearing.

If the company was firing its employees to minimize the pension obligations, then the company would also be charged with fraud and tax fixing. The employee who told Jeremy not to bother doing anything to keep the job because they would not listen but rather rubber stamp what Lucinda said, also violates not only the corporate policy (I assume that) but also the employment laws of Great Britain. The case did not comment on the settings under which Lucinda passed her statement to Jeremy, while also crating the possibility of harassment at the work place. The person like Jeremy who spent a lot of time at the company does not necessarily have strong heart, and if yelled at by Lucinda could have experienced a stoke or a heart attack. The person who misrepresented the law to benefit the company violated not only the employment laws but also cornered the human rights of Jeremy who would have acted differently if advised properly (or at least given the objective description of his rights) on the given issue. It is a well-known fact that even if Jeremy is found to be discriminated against, he would not return to his workplace again to face additional treatment.

It is for this reason; Jeremy should claim the compensation equal to the period of time that would guarantee him the pension he would otherwise receive.