The Report
The report is founded on a case involving Jemil, a worker who was fired from a company for egregious misconduct. The choice was made by Francois, the deputy head of HR. The case clearly has a number of important problems. One of the problems is that, if the institution's standards of behavior are not upheld, the business has the right to ensure that they are. The main purpose of the right of behavior is to ensure that employers and management operate within the law and that no one is permitted to form an unqualified or professional opinion. This brings the controversy at the point where the deputy director claims that Jemil should not bring in colleagues at the hearing. However, the law of states that it is the right of the employee to bring in anyone at the time of the hearing whether, a colleague, a member of the tribunal or a suitor. Moreover, every employee is allowed to have a companion as a witness in any case.
Sources and Application of the Law
Three rules are evident in the case involving Jemil; rules to disciplinary, discrimination and an unfair dismissal. Disciplinary rules involve the procedure followed in calling an employer to answering cases (Smith 2009, P.347). Some stages are observed which mainly help the employee get ready for the case and for the judges to allocate time for the situation. This brings in a problem in the case, as the employer is instantly called where the director does not want Jemil to formulate a story to present. Discrimination is the other aspect. This refers to cases where an employee is dismissed from work based on unfair processes that are not law abiding (Smith &Morton 2001, P.127).Discrimination could be regarding sex, color, race or even physical appearance. Jemil has bloodshot eyes which led to Francois discriminating based on the physical appearance. Unfair dismissal is also evident. Unfair dismissal means that an employee was eliminated from work where evidence for the decision is not presented legally. Jemil was dismissed without proof as the bloodshot eyes could be caused by other factors other than drugs and substances.
Discussion
Based on the three rules not adhered to, the law applies to supporting issues in the case presented. On disciplinary, the following stages are required. One is that the worker should have a prior warning. In this case, the employee is informed that their actions are not as per the expected code of conduct in the workplace, and this leads to consequences of facing the law. Adequate privacy is also required as the worker should be informed in a private place and not while with other employees (Dickens, Jones, Weekes & Hart, 1985, P. 67). Moreover, the immediate response is also required where the hearing should take place based on the day and time stated in the prior warning. There is also the case of documents and appeal which has to be present during the presentation of the case to show that the process involved in making the employee face the law is legal (Aquino, Galperin & Bennett ,2004. P.1018). From the explanation, it is clear that the HR deputy director did not observe the disciplinary process. One, the employee was not given a prior warning before hearing the case. Also, there were documents presented to legalize the action of dismissal taken indicating the process followed is not legal, and therefore Jemil has the chance to appeal.
Discrimination
Discrimination refers to where employees are intimidated based on the stated factors (Jitendra Heather & Kevin, 2013, P.345). In the case involving Jemil, the stated cause of dismissal is the bloodshot eyes. Firstly, let us understand the term. Bloodshot according to Brown (2000, P.49), refers to a deformity in the eyes, which is led by straining of the eyes, coughing or else injury. By the presence of the word deformity, the law comes in which is used to show intimidation. Francois may not like the physical look of Jemil. However, the director claims that Jemil could be involved in drugs that caused the bloodshot eyes. The statement is against the law as there is no evidence to support. In case the only cause of bloodshot eyes is the usage of drugs, the case would be different. Thus, Francois could be said to discriminate the employee due to physical looks. The action taken is therefore wrong, and the company did not use the right process for the dismissal. Apart from the eyes, the efficiency of the employee has not reduced which shows that the dismissal action taken is not legal.
Unfair Dismissal
Unfair dismissal is also evident in the case. According to the law, the only way to eliminate a person is by providing evidence of their actions (Evans, Goodman & Hargreaves, 1985, P.214) otherwise Jemil has the reasons to appeal the case with the witnesses. Francois realized that Jemil had bloodshot eyes that are the right of the deputy director to ensure that workers are okay regarding discipline, health, and other issues. The leader had the right to investigate the employee and find out the cause of the appearance. However, Francois did not do that. Instead, he concluded that the employee was on drugs and dismissed him. Apart from that, the leader did not allow the employee to present the evidence to colleagues. This makes it clear that the dismissal is based on non- professional process and unlawfully convictions. The leader should have investigated the condition of the worker before the dismissal. There are also reasons behind Francois refusal of the presence of colleagues at the questioning time. The other notable thing is the time given after the first dismissal and the time to appeal. Law states that after the first dismissal and the client are given a chance to appeal, the time given should be convenient for the convict to gather evidence or hire a lawyer for representation. One day allowance shows that the Francois has already decided on the dismissal though the process followed is unfair and discriminatory.
Conclusion
After analyzing the case and the situations surrounding, there are several concluding arguments. One because wrong disciplinary procedure, discrimination, and unfair dismissal are evident in the case the actions taken are wrong and rights of Jemil are denied. Thus, the employee has the right to sue the company for destroying his reputation in the workplace and also for unfair dismissal. Apart from that, the company did not follow the right procedure in ensuring the right code of conduct by the employee. Therefore, the company is guilty and should compensate for the wrongful actions of the employee. The advice I would give to the company is that law must be followed in all actions in the company. Although the employee had bloodshot eyes, dismissal without complete investigation is against the law, and this could affect the company greatly.
Bibliography
Aquino, K., Galperin, B.L., and Bennett, R.J., 2004. Social status and aggressiveness as moderators of the relationship between interactional justice and workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(5), pp.1001-1029.
Brown, J., 2000. Bloodshot eyes: Workload issues in computer science project courses. In Software Engineering Conference, 2000. APSEC 2000. Proceedings. Seventh Asia-Pacific (pp. 46-52). IEEE.
Dickens, L., Jones, M., Weekes, B. and Hart, M., 1985. Dismissed: A study of unfair dismissal and the industrial tribunal system. Oxford: Blackwell.
Evans, S., Goodman, J. and Hargreaves, L., 1985. Unfair dismissal law and employment practice in the 1980's (No. 53). Department of Employment.
Jitendra, M., Heather, S. and Kevin, B., 2013. Discrimination in the Workplace. Advances In Management.
Smith, P., 2009. New Labour and the commonsense of neoliberalism: trade unionism, collective bargaining and workers' rights. Industrial Relations Journal, 40(4), pp.337-355.
Smith, P. and Morton, G., 2001. New Labour’s reform of Britain's employment law: the devil is not only in the detail but the values and policy too. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 39(1), pp.119-138.
