Failure to Follow Procedural Law of New Castle Office - Case Study Paper Example

One of the legal risks that have emerged from the New Castle Office is failure to follow disciplinary procedures and hearing guidelines by the human resource manager and investigating officer against Colin. Dolton, Bondibene and Wadsworth (2012, p.88) share that employment laws in the United Kingdom require that the happenings of any disciplinary hearing must be documented. The purpose of documentation is so as to provide references during future revisits to the incident. However, both the investigating officer and the human resource manager did not take any notes detailing steps, evidence, rebuttals, and final decision made from the process. From the account provided, there is no record the Colin was provided with a dismissal letter. An analysis of hiring and dismissal laws in Britains constitution, Sanders (2009, p.41) states that the law requires that an a employer should provide an employee with a dismissal letter that cites justified reasons for their dismissal. The letter should also indicate that the organization acted upon reasonable circumstances when deciding to dismiss and employee from his or her work. Therefore, the failure by Care For All Limited to follow procedural law in disciplinary hearing and termination of service predisposes the organization to legal sanctions.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Best Course of Action

The best course of action for the organization is to reinstitute a repeat of the disciplinary hearing citing review of evidence provided by the defendant and the complainant. The step would prevent Colin for seeking a reversal of the decision or compensation from labor courts while citing the lack of the organization in adhering to employment termination laws. The organization should ensure that disciplinary procedures are documented and that if a decision is made against the defendant, he should be given the chance to appeal the decision.

Validity of the Claim

For the claim forwarded by the investigating officer as well as the human resource manager to be valid, they must prove that Colin violated stipulated company policies thus necessitating disciplinary actions. The business must prove that it had published laws and policy that detail employee conduct on any social medial platform or any public platform that airs personal opinion. Furthermore, the business must prove that Colin was aware of these policies and acted under utter disregard of the requirement. One of the ways the business might ascertain this is through providing documentation that proves Colins signature that recognizes acknowledgement of the existence of such policies of a letter, email, fax or public noticed published with organizational setting that purposely made employees aware of the existence of such a policy (Hart and Secunda, 2009, p.37) . According to an extensive evaluation of social networking guidelines and discipline laws stipulated by the The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, Lucero, Allen and Elzweig (2013, p.147) indicate that the law requires that employers do communicate guidelines to employees regarding social media postings on behalf or against their employer. Failure to prove this may expose the company to an expensive litigation case on the grounds of unfair dismissal from work. It may thus subject the organization to expensive fines, settlement fees and a ruined reputation.

Best Course of Action

For this case, the best course of action would be to reinstate Colin to his position since the company had not provided guidelines regarding social media postings. It should be noted that Colin is aware of the requirement by law since he stated during his disciplinary hearing that there was no internal policies that indicated restrictions on the matter. Therefore, instead of risking a lawsuit that may possibly be ruled in Colins favor, the company should reinstate him and publish a set of requirements and guidelines on the matter.

Undermining Whistleblower

Another legal risk that the business may face is a lawsuit on claims that it was undermining a whistle blower by seeking to silence or punish him for publicly revealing ills within the organization. Colins social media post revealed frustration derived from employers going unpunished from doing a certain wrong thing. Colin reveals that on that day he had a challenging day at work and that he cannot bear to see residents treated in such manner that can be easily insinuated to be a degratory or unlawful manner. Colin further names the organization that he purports unfair happenings are taking place. Colin can go to a court of law and claim that his termination was due to revelations he made about the working conditions in the organization. He may then support his claims on the grounds that there was no documentation of his disciplinary hearings and that he was not issued a letter of termination so as to cover up the irregularity.

Best Course of Action

Given that that the company cannot validate its claims due to the lack of published policies on the matter and failure to document the process Colin stands to win a litigation case should he sue the compamy for discrimination for being a whistle blower. From a study on the protection accorded to whistleblowers Lewis (2008, p.497) indicates that a whistle blower can take his or her case to an employment tribunal. To prevent such an occurrence, the business should reinstate the employee so as to prevent a lengthy and expensive litigation process. After reinstatement, the organization should publish policies regarding social media positings on the company.

Bibliography

Dolton, P., Bondibene, C.R. and Wadsworth, J., 2012. Employment, Inequality and the UK National Minimum Wage over the MediumTerm. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 74(1), pp.78-106.Sanders, A., 2009. Part one of the Employment Act 2008:betterdispute resolution?. Industrial Law Journal, 38(1).Lucero, M.A., Allen, R.E. and Elzweig, B., 2013. Managing employee social networking: evolving views from the national labor relations board. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 25(3), pp.143-158.Hart, M. and Secunda, P.M., 2009. A matter of context: Social framework evidence in employment discrimination class actions. Fordham L. Rev., 78, p.37.

Lewis, D., 2008. Ten years of public interest disclosure legislation in the UK: are whistleblowers adequately protected?. Journal of business ethics, 82(2), p.497.