The case to review is one that involves Simon, an employee in the renowned MNC. In the institution, he works under the leadership of Mr. Smith who is a senior manager in the institution. There are some issues that have arose over the recent past and this is where the employee has felt that he is being mistreated. He is unhappy in his place of work and this is noted from the fact that after a heated argument with the boss, he sheds tears and leaves that place of work. It is imperative to go through some of the legal options that Simon has after the altercation and consequently find justice through the contemporary justice system. Employment Law
It is imperative to note that there are some major employee law rights that are present in the business environment and after reviewing the case, it is possible to find that they were all broken by the boss. It is essential for bosses to understand these laws. Some of the leaders are unaware of these but it is the responsibility of the company to administer these laws. Given the fact that MNC is a huge company and is known by many people, then it is possible to note that Mr. Smith understood these laws clearly and was just ignorant and disrespectful to Simon.
One of the employee law rights to note is the right to know (O’Connor, 2017). According to the rules of the contract that Simon has with the company, he is required to offer his services to the company in case the amount of work or another employee fails to show up. However, he is supposed to handle this work as long as the assignment is in his purview. The amount of work that Mr. Smith had accorded Simon was way too much and given the fact that he was even required to man the front desk shows that this was some form of overworking. Rather than asking Simon whether he was comfortable, he went ahead and gave him the tasks. It is important to note that the right to know was breached here and this is where he had the right to know that he would be getting some additional tasks. Upon knowing this, he should have protested early against this form of inconsideration in the company. Simon has the right to sue the company because of this. Employment Law
The right to participate is another one that every employee in the modern environment is supposed to have (O’Connor, 2017). As identified, there was a point in manager’s office where a heated argument took place. The argument was because Simon was refusing to agree with the boss. At one point, the table was banged by an angry Mr. Smith. The anger was because of the frustration that he was having with the workload and required Simon to tow and ensure that he handled the work as required. Simon had the right to participate in any discussion relating to his post and the fact that Mr. Smith did not offer him this opportunity effectively shows the amount of disrespect that he had for the employee. Employees are supposed to plead their arguments in case they feel that something is not going accordingly. Simon is allowed to sue Mr. Smith and the reason for this is the fact that this type of behavior is not with accordance to the employee law rules.
The right to refuse unsafe work is another concept to review. Some employers subject their employees to work environments that are unsafe and the consequent of this is having them failing to work for the sake of their health. In the given scenario, Simon had diligently turned down the work and this is because he felt that those working conditions were rather unsafe for him. The work environment at the time is not identified to have presented any direct risks, however, it is also important to note the mental state of the worker. If Simon had agreed to work on the assigned tasks, he would have suffered from a lot of stress and with stress there is a risk to the mental status of the individual.
Another risk to the health of the person is the kind of work that he had been assigned. Because of the increased workload, Simon was required to work even in departments that he was not familiar with. There are numerous risks that come from working in a place that a person is not familiar with (Rogers, 2016). It is hard to grab a particular concept immediately and there are chances that he would have gone through an accident but this was not a matter that concerned Mr. Smith It is only appropriate for Simon to sue Mr. Smith and reason for this is that being forced to carry out a task is an aspect that can lead to health damages. Employment Law
The case to review is relating to the United Kingdom against the Legislative Council Bureau. The given case was around the time the United States was carrying out numerous tests and the consequence of this was having lawyers from the two sides engaging in verbal and consequently legal wars relating to the same. The case made the world aware of the tension that was present between the two countries and more specifically the United States and Europe. The various legal precedents assisted in the comprehension of the matter and thus it was possible to note the means through which this could be recovered (Pekkanen, 2018). As time progressed, the M.A Lopes case became a pivotal level to review relating to the issue of equality on the issue of employment law where the government would not take cases that individuals presented in a given environment. The given concept made the employees have power over the employers as they could sure them over the infringement of rights.
Galvin Daniel is a vocal author and activist who has written numerous legal articles seeking to see to it that labor and employment laws are effectively followed. In one of his articles posted early last year in various platforms, he explained that the current environment has positively changed. Labor unions have become vocal seeking to see to it that employers observe the rights of the employees (Galvin, 2019). It is the right of each employee to forward a matter to the courts if he or she feels oppressed. Having the employment laws printed is essential in ensuring that employers follow what is required.
For the case involving Mr. Smith and Simon, the company had clearly written down the rules that were if the employee was not comfortable handling an assignment or if it was out of his scope, then he she would be excused. For this particular case, one can note that the employment law requiring following of a contract was not followed. The employee felt that he was being stretched and was uncomfortable. Rather than following or paying attention to the needs of the employee, the employer, Mr. Smith, pushed him even further which was against the rules of the contract. Simon has the right to sue Mr. Smith on all counts.
Galvin, D. J. (2019). From labor law to employment law: The changing politics of workers’ rights. Studies in American Political Development, 33(1), 50-86.
O’Connor, N. (2017). ‘Interpreting employment legislation through a fundamental rights lens: What’s the purpose?. European Labour Law Journal, 8(3), 193-216.
Pekkanen, M. R., Morenilla, M. J., Freeland, J., Baka, M. A., Bonnici, M. G. M., &Butkevych (2018), M. V. LCB v THIE UNITED KINGDOM.
Rogers, B. (2016). Employment rights in the platform economy: Getting back to basics. Harv. L. &Pol’y Rev., 10, 479.