M21764 Business and Employment Law Coursework Sample

M21764 Business and Employment Law

This coursework has a maximum word limit of 2000 words

This is an individual assessment. This piece of coursework which comprises 50% of the total marks for this module, consists of questions based on a case study and requires you to demonstrate problem-solving skills and undertake, and communicate clearly, objective analysis of complex factual situations in the context of employment law; access and critically analyse paper or electronic primary and other legal sources; conduct independent research on legal topics.

Please read the case study below and ANSWER QUESTIONS 1 and 2.

AVO is a company that provides financial management and auditing services for businesses. Due to profits made from last year, AVO did set up new branches and hired more staff. Ms Ariana was recently appointed at AVO as a sales and marketing representative.

Ms Ariana's contract included a 6-months probationary period. Ms Ariana's contract also allows her to leave work at a time she chooses once her work for the day is done. Her contract says she is an Independent Contractor, and that either party can terminate the contract by giving one month's notice. She is paid £600 per week via the AVO's PAYE Payment system. Although she has some flexibility with her working pattern, she is required to seek permission for any holiday or annual leave and inform her line manager. Ariana is also required to dress in the Company's uniform and to work exclusively from the premises of the company. At the end of the month, she noticed that her salary was shortened by the deducted period she was on holiday. When she raised it with the HR, she was told that her contract specifies her as an holiday. When she raised it with the HR, she was told that her contract specifies her as an Independent Contractor, and so, she is not entitled to holiday pay.

Ms Ariana is so excited with her new job and although she has worked for 3 months so far, she is already well spoken of by other colleagues and the line manager. Ms Ariana is also a Christian who loves to share her faith whenever the opportunity arises. One day, Ms Ariana asked her line manager for permission to use one of the office rooms during lunch break to share her faith, for which she was granted permission. Many of her colleagues attended the talk she hosted during their lunch break and gave her positive feedback, with some of her colleagues even wanting to learn more about her faith.

Two weeks later, Ms Ariana was called unto the office by her employer, and in the presence of two other senior staff, and a HR personnel, was handed a letter explaining that they will no longer need her working for the company, and that she should take her personal belongings and leave the office premise immediately. When she asked why this sudden decision, she was told that this company is not a place for sharing religious beliefs, as it is distracting to the work of the company.

Question 1

Ms Ariana also feels she is being discriminated against on the basis of her religion. Advise Ms Ariana on the scope of the law relating to religious discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.

Question 2

Before Ariana was fired, she had taken a three weeks holiday. However, AVO has noted that they will not pay her for those holidays as she is an independent contractor. Advise AVO on what is the employment status of Ms Ariana, and whether Ms Ariana has a legal claim for the unpaid holiday.

Solution

Answer 1

The equality Act 2010 is a legislation that safeguards from the different discrimination and especially the religious discrimination. The main aim of the discussion is to provide an analysis of the Equality Act 2010's religious discrimination law and the potential impact on Ms. Ariana's employment scenario . In a variety of spheres of life, such as employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, and public functions, religion or belief-based discrimination is outlawed under the Equality Act of 2010 . This means that people can't be treated unfairly or less favorably because of their religious beliefs—or lack thereof. In addition, the Act shields individuals from religious harassment, which is any unwelcome behavior that violates a person's dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, or offensive environment due to their religion (Hankivsky, de Merich & Christoffersen 2019). This covers cases where people are designated, offended, or exposed to hostile comments or activities in light of their religion or conviction.

Direct religious discrimination for management assignment expert is when an individual is treated less favorably than others in similar circumstances due to their religion or belief. Direct religious discrimination, for instance, occurs when an employer rejects a qualified candidate solely on the basis of their religious beliefs . The unfair treatment based on religion or belief is the most important factor. When a provision, criterion, or practice is applied to everyone but disproportionately disadvantages individuals with particular religious beliefs , this is known as indirect religious discrimination (Hussain, Lubna & Sheikh 2022). Even though the rule or practice may appear to be neutral, it may be harmful to people of certain religions or beliefs. In the context of religion or belief, harassment is unwelcome behavior that violates a person's dignity or creates a hostile, intimidating, degrading, or offensive environment. It can take the form of insults, derogatory remarks, or mocking someone based on their religious beliefs. For instance, religious harassment occurs when a coworker consistently disparages a person's religious beliefs and practices, resulting in a hostile work environment.

Religious discrimination in the workplace is completely protected by the Equality Act of 2010 . This incorporates enlistment, agreements of business, advancements, preparing valuable open doors, excusals, and any remaining work related matters. Representatives, work candidates, and provisional laborers are completely covered by these securities. During the recruitment process, for instance, an employer cannot, solely on the basis of their religion or belief, refuse to hire someone or treat them less favorably. Also, bosses should guarantee that advancements, preparing valuable open doors, and different advantages are granted decently and without segregation in view of strict convictions (Feat & Hand 2015). The right of individuals to express and practice teir religious beliefs, which includes the freedom to do so, is recognized by the Equality Act of 2010 . Employers should not impose unreasonable restrictions on the religious practices of their employees unless there is a legitimate and proportionate reason to restrict such manifestations. Ms. Ariana must demonstrate that there is a PCP in her workplace that disadvantages individuals of her religion or belief in order to establish a claim of indirect religious discrimination. She also needs to demonstrate that this PCP had a negative impact on her own life. However, even if indirect discrimination is found, the employer can still argue that the PCP is an appropriate means of achieving a legitimate goal. This implies the business should show that the PCP is fundamental and supported in accomplishing a genuine business goal and that there are no less unfair choices accessible (Feast & Hand 2015).

Two key elements needs to be demonstrated by Ms Ariana for establishing a calim of indirect religious discrimination (Feat & Hand 2015). In the first place, she should show that there is an arrangement, model, or practice (PCP) set up inside her work environment that puts people of her religion or conviction in a difficult situation. This PCP might be a strategy, rule, or practice applied generally to all representatives . For instance, if the company has a policy that all employees must work on Saturdays, disproportionately affecting those who observe the Sabbath on that day, it may be viewed as a PCP that harms Ms. Ariana's religious beliefs. Second, Ms Ariana should show that she by and by experienced an inconvenience because of the PCP. This could mean that she receives unfavorable treatment, is denied opportunities, or has negative effects on her employment or the environment in which she works. In Ms Ariana's case, assuming that her end was a consequence of her solicitation to share her confidence during mid-day breaks, she could contend that the PCP of disallowing strict conversations during work hours excessively impacted people of her strict conviction, and she experienced a hindrance by being terminated If the employer can demonstrate that the PCP in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate goal, they can still defend Ms. Ariana's claim of indirect religious discrimination . This means that the employer needs to provide a valid justification for the PCP, showing that it is necessary for the business to run smoothly and that there are no alternatives that are less discriminatory (Johns et al, 2014).

Ms Ariana could start by raising a conventional complaint with her boss, following the organization's inner techniques for settling debates. This regularly includes presenting a composed grievance illustrating the subtleties of the supposed strict segregation and mentioning a goal. The employer ought to then look into the situation, gather evidence, and give Ms. Ariana the chance to make her case. Ms. Ariana's understanding of the company's grievance procedure and adherence to any time limits or procedures for filing a complaint are crucial. During this process, having an open and constructive conversation with her employer may aid in resolving the issue. Ms. Ariana has the option of seeking assistance from the Advisory, Conciliation, and Arbitration Service (ACAS) in the event that attempts at internal resolution do not result in a satisfactory outcome. Early Conciliation is a free service provided by ACAS to assist parties in workplace disputes in exploring options for resolving their issues without resorting to legal action.

In the event that ACAS intervention or placation doesn't prompt a goal or isn't sought after, Ms Ariana might wish to look for legitimate exhortation from a business attorney. The lawyer can look at the case's merits, explain the laws that apply, and suggest possible legal options, like filing a claim with an employment tribunal. Ms Ariana actually must know about any time limits for starting legal procedures. Employment discrimination claims must typically be filed within three months of the date of the discriminatory act or the last act in a series of discriminatory acts in the United Kingdom.

Answer 2

The current case concerns Ms. Ariana's employment status at AVO, a company that provides auditing and financial management services. She has been utilized there for the beyond couple of months as a deals and promoting delegate. Ms. Ariana's status as a self employed entity, as per AVO, has driven the organization to keep installment for her new three-week excursion. On the other hand, Ms. Ariana's contractual agreements and working conditions hint at a level of responsibility and control that goes against typical characteristics of an independent contractor. Our conversation and examination depends on this inconsistency between the expressed and genuine nature of Ms. Ariana's work status.

There are three principal kinds of work status under UK regulation: worker, independent contractor, and employee . A "representative" is someone who works under a business contract, which incorporates a typical responsibility for the business to give work and to the individual to recognize and perform it (Tomlinson & Gardiner 2009). The way, time, and area of the representative's work are vigorously affected by the business. Employees and some self-employed individuals are included in a broader definition of "worker."

In order to determine Ms. Ariana's employment status, it is essential to investigate the truth of her working arrangement with AVO. Despite the fact that her contract refers to her as a "self employed entity," some aspects of her actual working relationship with AVO suggest that she is more like a representative or specialist than a self-employed entity. One of the most important indicators is how much control AVO has over Ms. Ariana's work. A level of control typical of an employment relationship is demonstrated by the fact that she is required to only work at the location of the company. Independent contractors, on the other hand, typically choose when and where they work (Tomlinson & Durbin 2010). Furthermore, the presence of a line manager who oversees Ms. Ariana's work and ought to support her leave requests is another indication of a business relationship. By requiring permission to take a vacation, AVO maintains significant control over her time, which is uncommon in a true independent contractor arrangement..

Ms. Ariana's employment status is also revealed by the payment method. She receives her compensation through AVO's PAYE (Pay As You Procure) system, a component that is more frequently utilized by representatives. In this system, expenses and commitments to public safety are deducted at the source (Tomlinson & Durbin 2010). Ms. Ariana's requirement to wear the company's uniform provides additional proof of an employment relationship. A uniform ordinarily implies that an individual is fundamental for an affiliation, presenting a united association picture to the remainder of the world. Last but not least, Ms. Ariana's contract's probationary period is more typical of an employment contract than an agreement with an independent contractor.

Rights to Paid Holiday

The Working Time Regulations of 1998 administer the legal right to paid yearly leave in the Assembled Realm . It qualifies all 'workers' for 5.6 weeks' paid event every year (Tomlinson & Durbin 2010). Representatives fall under this umbrella, but it also encompasses a wider range of individuals who are obligated to carry out any work or provide any services on their own. The term covers a wide range of people, many of whom could be considered self-employed in some way. Even when they are ill at work, employees are entitled to paid time off. They ought to be permitted to carry over their vacation time to the following leave year if their illness prevents them from taking one . If the worker's employment ends and they are required to take a vacation, they should be compensated for the vacation. Ms. Ariana's business status has been looked into in the past, so it seems possible that she could be ordered as a specialist rather than a worker . This is due to the fact that AVO has a lot of control over her work, that she must wear a uniform to fit in, and that the PAYE payment method helps pay her. She may therefore be entitled to paid vacation under UK law, and AVO's refusal to pay for her vacation may be a violation of her statutory rights (Conen, Henkens & Schippers 2014).

All things considered, Ms. Ariana's business status suggests that she may be viewed as a representative or laborer rather than an independent business. If she falls into one of these categories, she is entitled to statutory paid vacation under UK law. Expecting that AVO won't pay for her get-away, it may be in break of her lawful honors. Consequently, Ms. Ariana could have grounds to bring a body of evidence against AVO for unlawful deduction of wages and break of the Working Time Rules for ignored event pay. The circumstances incorporating Ms. Ariana's dismissal raise stresses of anticipated severe isolation. According to the Equality Act of 2010, it is illegal to discriminate against employees based on their religion or belief. If Ms. Ariana's termination was based on her Christian faith, this may constitute religious discrimination .

Ms. Ariana's employment status at AVO may have been misclassified, according to the analysis. The proof proposes that she may really be viewed as a specialist or representative as opposed to a self employed entity . This misclassification could have expected lawful consequences for AVO, including claims for neglected occasion and charges of strict separation. Considering these possible legitimate issues, it is fitting for AVO to look for lawful counsel to figure out their commitments and likely liabilities (Conen, Henkens & Schippers 2014). They ought to reevaluate their employment practices and reconsider their decision to withhold payment for Ms. Ariana's vacation. To avoid future disputes and potential legal consequences, it would be beneficial for AVO to ensure that their classification of workers is accurate and in accordance with employment laws .

Bibliography
UK Cases
Bull and Another v Hall and Another (2013)
Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and Others (2018)
Eweida and Others v United Kingdom (2013)
Mbuyi v Newpark Childcare (Shepherds Bush) Ltd (2015):
Stringer and Others v HM Revenue and Customs (2009)
Bear Scotland Ltd v Fulton and Others (2015):
Kigass Aero Components Ltd v Brown and Others (2002):
Hughes and Others v The Royal Mail Group Ltd (2011):
UK Legislation
Equality Act 2010
The Working Time Regulations 1998
Official Publications/Parliamentary Papers

Hannum H, ‘The Advisory Opinion on Kosovo: An Opportunity Lost, or a Poisoned Chalice Refused?’ (2011) 24 LJIL

Conen, W., Henkens, K., & Schippers, J., 'Ageing organisations and the extension of working lives: A case study approach' (2014) 43(4) Journal of Social Policy 773-792
Feast, P., & Hand, J. (2015). Enigmas of the Equality Act 2010—“Three uneasy pieces” (2015) 1(1) Cogent Social Sciences

Hankivsky, O., de Merich, D., & Christoffersen, A. (2019). Equalities ‘devolved’: Experiences in mainstreaming across the UK devolved powers post-Equality Act 2010 (2019) 14(2) British Politics 141-161

Hussain, Z., Lubna, J. R., & Sheikh, H. (2022). The Equality Act (2010)-pre- and post-pandemic historic development on equality and discrimination issues for employers: Review of literature (2022) 64(2) International Journal of Law and Management 168-183

Johns, N., MacBride-Stewart, S., Powell, M., & Green, A. (2014). When is positive action not positive action? exploring the conceptual meaning and implications of the tie-break criterion in the UK Equality Act 2010 (2014) 33(1) Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 97-113

Tomlinson, J., & Durbin, S. (2010). Female part-time managers: Work-life balance, aspirations and career mobility (2010) 29(3) Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 255-270

Tomlinson, J., & Gardiner, J. (2009). Organisational approaches to flexible working: Perspectives of equality and diversity managers in the UK (2009) 28(8) Equal Opportunities International 671-686