LAW 3058 Employment Law Assessment

Please answer one of the following problem questions.

1. John retired from his lecturing job at Excelsior University in 2011 aged 56 years.  He was in receipt of a generous severance package and a fully paid up pension.  He would not have needed to work again in order to meet any financial commitments.  However, being reasonably fit and sociable he wanted something to do, so he answered an advertisement placed by the Rhineland Motor Works Ltd to work for it as a casual driver at its servicing centre.  This is where car owners go to get their cars serviced and any repairs and maintenance work carried out.  They frequently need someone to drive them to work while their car is being worked on and brought back to the servicing centre to collect their car at the end of the working day.   

John was successful in getting the job he applied for.  He signed a contract in 2011 which expressly stated that he was a ‘casual’ worker and that Rhineland Motor Works Ltd was not obliged to give him any work.  He would be paid at an agreed rate for any days he actually worked.  What actually happened in practice from the time John commenced work for Rhineland Motor Works Ltd was that he worked a four-day week of ten hours a day.  The four days were not always the same four days but apart from that there was no other variation from what appeared to be a conventional 40 hour a week job.  There were several other ‘casual’ drivers working for Rhineland Motor Works Ltd and their working arrangements were for practical purposes the same as John’s.

At the beginning of the Covid 19 pandemic Rhineland Motor Works Ltd released most, but not all, of their ‘casual’ drivers who did the work that John did.  There was no consultation with any representatives of Rhineland Motor Works Ltd’s staff and those casual drivers who were retained were all below 40 years old.  

Advise John whether he would be entitled to any remedy against Rhineland Motor Works Ltd for releasing him from his job.  Assume that John is able to satisfy any time deadlines for claiming any redress.

2. In 2010 Diana commenced an executive training position with Diamond Hass Investment Bank Plc.  Her contractually stipulated working week was 48 hours but nobody could do all the work required to be done in the job within that kind of time frame.  Anyone who consistently failed to complete their allocated tasks would be dismissed without regard to any kind of extenuating circumstances.  Diana managed to cope with the workload she was given and, in the decade following her initial employment by Diamond Hass, she was twice promoted to more senior positions.  

Each promotion brought an increased workload for Diana although the contractually stipulated 48-hour week did not change.  There were lucrative financial bonuses payable at the employer’s discretion for good working performance and Diana was always successful in obtaining them.  However success came at a price. Diana’s social life effectively disappeared.  She was working weekends and most of her holidays.  She put on weight and became increasingly drawn and tired looking.  However, she never complained and everything she was asked to do she completed in the time required.  

Then in December 2022 Diana suffered a complete mental breakdown.  The diagnosis indicates that she will never be able to work in the banking industry again.  Advise Diana whether she would have any claim for compensation from her employer.

3. The local branch of the Association of Nerds and Boffins organised a picket line at the entrances to Execrable University during an industrial dispute that took place in December 2022.  At the main entrance to the university six persons stood around to offer any member of university staff entering the university, either on foot or by vehicle, an information sheet detailing the union’s case against the employer in relation to the pay and working conditions’ issues that brought about the strike.  A little to the side of the pickets the union had organised a choir of 30 union members to sing carols and other Christmas songs, ostensibly to keep up the spirits of the pickets and other striking members of the university.  Occasionally the choir chanted obscenities about the employer instead of singing Christmas music, and when the choir did sing Christmas songs the cacophony of sound was of a quality not significantly better than the obscenities.  Buoyed by the atmosphere around the main entrance two of the pickets occasionally stood directly in the path of vehicles seeking to enter the university.  This forced those vehicles to stop so that the pickets could give the drivers the information sheet detailing the union’s case.  On any occasion when drivers were stopped all the pickets did was give them the sheet.  No driver was forced to engage in conversation or to listen to any union member making representations.  However, on one occasion the two pickets were knocked down, injuring them quite seriously, by an incoming driver who was determined not to be impeded in any way in his efforts to get to work that day.    

Advise the Association of Nerds and Boffins about the extent of its immunity from legal action that might arise out of the events above.  Do not give any advice to the two pickets injured by the driver they stood in front of.      

Please answer one of the following essay questions:-

1. A restrictive covenant in a contract of employment, restricting what an employee may do after leaving a job, should be enforced according to its terms.  There is no justification for the courts interfering with the freely entered into bargain of the contracting parties.  Discuss this statement with reference to legal authority.

2. Write a case note on the decision of the UK Supreme Court in Harpur Trust v Brazel Ltd [2022] UKSC 21.  In this exercise marks will be awarded in accordance with the following scheme:-

• 30% marks for a coherent summary of the material facts and case history of this decision.
• 35% marks for a coherent explanation of the reasons for the Court’s decision.
• 35% marks for a critical analysis of the Court’s decision.

3. With reference to legal authority discuss how discrimination law addresses the problem of two or more protected characteristics coming into conflict.

4. In the past it was often said that trade unions bullied both employers and employees, but that now the law bullies trade unions.  Critically assess this statement with reference to legislation and case law.

5. Critically assess the extent to which the law on unfair dismissal has enhanced the rights of employees dismissed from their employment.