Issue Concerning Shazia Khan Essays

Issue Concerning Shazia Khan Essays Issue Concerning Shazia Khan Essay Issue Concerning Shazia Khan Essay 199288 Report ON LEGAL ISSUES CONCERNING INDIVIDUALS WHO WORK AT TRAVEL EXPRESS’S SELBY SITE AND THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES TRAVEL EXPRESS MAY FACE August 2007 Prepared for: Chetan Walla The Personnel Manager Prepared by: Assistant Personnel Manager Drumhead This study discusses legal issues that have emerged from separate incidents at Travel Express’s Selby Site. Relevant instance jurisprudence and legal rules were explored in order to detect whether Travel Express may confront in any legal effects. The study reveals the legal effects Travel Express are likely to confront. Issue Refering Shazia Khan Shazia Khan’s strain hurt raises some legal issues. As employers, Travel Express have a responsibility to guarantee, so far as is moderately operable, the wellness, safety and public assistance at work of all its employees. This responsibility is imposed by the Health and Safety at Work Etc Act 1974. [ 1 ] Travel Express run the hazard of being held vicariously apt for the Regional Manager’s breach of a statutory responsibility. Case jurisprudence associating to emphasize at work makes clear that an employer will be in breach of its responsibility to its employee if it fails to take sensible attention to avoid wounding the employee’s wellness. [ 2 ] It may good be that Shazia Khan’s hurt was non moderately foreseeable. However, if the Regional Manager fails to take stairss to assist her after holding become cognizant that her work load is holding an inauspicious consequence on her physical wellness, Travel Express may still be found to hold breached their responsibility to her. [ 3 ] As employers, Travel Express besides have an implied responsibility to cover with grudges decently and within a sensible clip. [ 4 ] An employee is foremost expected to decide grudges with her director informally. This is precisely what Shazia Khan did by raising the issues with the Regional Manager. If she realises that the grudge can non be resolved informally, she may take to decide it officially with direction or follow the grudge processs set out in the Employment Act 2002 [ 5 ] to take her instance to the employment court. In a contract of employment, there is besides what is known as implied term of trust and regard. Thus Express Travel have a responsibility non to make anything that will damage the relationship of trust and regard between them and Shazia Khan. The sorts of behaviors that may represent a breach of responsibility to handle an employee with regard include failure to give the employee necessary support. [ 6 ] The Regional Manager’s response to Shazia Khan’s ailment at least constitutes failure to give her necessary support. The legal effect Travel Express may confront is that misdemeanor of the above-named implied footings entitles Shazia Khan to end the contract of employment and convey a claim against Travel Express for constructive dismissal. [ 7 ] Stairss must hence be taken by the Company, every bit shortly as is practically possible, to decide the job. Issue Refering Trespassing and Injuries Suffered by the Two Male childs Trespassing in the vehicle mending country and the hurts suffered by the two male childs, Allan and Barry, do non simply raise legal issues but may besides do Travel Express to incur liability. Aside from holding a responsibility to take sensible attention for the wellness and safety of their employees and avoid exposing them to unneeded hazard, employers may owe a responsibility of attention to individuals who are neither their employees nor visitants. Such a responsibility, which falls under civil wrong jurisprudence instead than employment jurisprudence, is imposed by the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984. An resident of premises owes a responsibility to another non being his visitant in regard of any hazard of their suffering hurt on the premises if he is cognizant of the danger or has sensible evidences to believe that it exists. [ 8 ] Not merely are Travel Express the residents of the country in inquiry within the significance of the 1984 Act, but besides they are cognizant that there has been intruding in the country. Besides, Travel Express have sensible evidences to believe that danger exists in an country where damaged managers and bringing new waves are repaired. An resident besides owes a responsibility to another non being his visitant in regard of any hazard of their suffering hurt on the premises if he knows or has sensible evidences to believe that the other is in the locality of the danger concerned or that he may come into the locality of the danger, [ 9 ] and the hazard is one against which, in all the fortunes of the instance, he may moderately be expected to offer the other some protection. [ 10 ] Travel Express knew that the two male childs who have suffered hurt were in the locality of the danger. They were hence required to take such attention as is sensible in all the fortunes of the instance to see that the male childs did non endure hurt on the premises by ground of the danger concerned. [ 11 ] By neglecting to take stairss to give warning of the danger concerned or to deter individuals from incurring the hazard [ 12 ] , Travel Express have breached their responsibility to the male childs and are hence likely to be held apt fo r the boys’ hurts. Issue Refering the Assistant Operator’s Fatal Accident In order to forestall their employees from prolonging hurts at workplace, employers owe a responsibility to supply a moderately safe works, premises and systems of working. [ 13 ] Not merely does the guiding of the lifting system to place autumn within the range of Mr Peter Smith’s employment, but besides it is a lawful act. For this ground, Travel Express are responsible for the mode in which the lifting system is operated by their employees [ 14 ] Since Express Travel owe their workers a responsibility of attention, the inquiry turns on whether the accident was caused by the carelessness of the operator, Travel Express or the victim. An employee besides has a responsibility to execute his responsibilities with sensible accomplishment. [ 15 ] However, even if the operator breached his responsibility to execute with sensible accomplishment, Travel Express would non be entitled to switch their liability to him if a breach of statutory responsibility or carelessness on their por tion contributed to the victim’s decease. [ 16 ] It is non clear from the fortunes of the instance whether the accident was caused by the carelessness of the operator or his helper ( victim ) . As employers, Travel Express are placed under an duty to guarantee that every lifting operation affecting raising equipment isproperly planned by a competent individual ; suitably supervised ; and carried out in a safe mode. [ 17 ] They are besides required to guarantee that the lifting system is inspected by a competent individual at suited intervals between thorough scrutiny to guarantee that wellness and safety conditions are maintained and that impairment can be detected and remedied in good clip. [ 18 ] Entrusting a new employee with the operation of a heavy lifting system without supervising clearly constitutes a breach of statutory demands. Surely, if the system had been exhaustively examined it would hold been detected that the overseas telegram, which snapped and killed the helper operator, was under tenseness. It is an offense to transgress any wellness and safety ordinances. [ 19 ] Criminal proceedings may therefore be brought against Travel Express. A immense mulct is likely to be imposed on them if they are found guilty. [ 20 ] Issue Concerning Operation Managers’ Conduct The Operations Manager’s response to the safety issues raised by the safety representative was unhelpful. Health and Safety related affairs at a workplace can non be treated as confidential, and by raising them with the operations director, the safety representative was clearly executing his statutory maps. It is his responsibility to look into possible jeopardies and unsafe happenings at the workplace and to analyze the causes of accidents at the workplace. [ 21 ] It is besides his responsibility to do representations to the employer on general affairs impacting wellness, safety or public assistance at work of the employee at the workplace. [ 22 ] Travel Express have an duty to work in co-operation with the safety representative. Health and safety jurisprudence requires them to confer with him â€Å"with a position to the devising and care of agreements which will enable him and the employees he represents to co-operate efficaciously in advancing and developing steps to guarantee the wellness and safety at work of the employees, and in look intoing the effectivity of such measures† . [ 23 ] Therefore, to state the safety representative that the affairs were confidential and to warn him non raise them once more shows that the operation director was non prepared to move to forestall similar accidents happening at the workplace in future. The operation manager’s behavior may be held to represent a breach of responsibility imposed by statutory jurisprudence. His behavior may therefore cause Travel Express to confront prosecution as it is an offense to transgress any wellness and safety ordinances. [ 24 ] Besides, a safety representative has employment protection right with respect to his maps. Under the Employment Rights Act 1996, he has the right non to be subjected to any hurt by any act by his employer ( i.e. Travel Express ) on the land that he performed or proposed to execute any map as a safety representative. [ 25 ] Therefore, if the safety representative raises the affairs once more his park license should non be taken off from him otherwise Travel Express may confront the legal effects of go againsting an employee’s employment protection right. Bibliography Butterworths Legal Updater, hypertext transfer protocol: //www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/search/ homesubmitForm.do Visited:16/07/2007 Selwyn, N. , M. ( 2006 ) Selwyn’s Employment Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press Wallington, P. ( 2007 ) Butterworths Employment Handbook, London: Butterworths 1