13/06/2018
Employment Law Case Brief paper
Introduction
Competition and the need to respond to market needs have made the organizations to make some uninformed decisions in the recent past. Some of the decision has affected other parties such as employees, customers and society making them to seek legal redress and even compensation from the involved organization. The increased lawsuits has not only caused injury to the image of some known organizations but also increased the costs of operation. Some of the organizations which have experienced the cost of lawsuits have had to develop policies to reduce such burdens. Therefore, this paper describes one of the employment law cases, Aslam v Uber BV (2016) and explains how the employment law was breached.
Summary of the issue of the case
One of the most discussed employment law case in the recent past is Aslam v Uber BV. In 2015, Mr Aslam Yaseen and Mr Farrar James had been working for Uber BV as taxi drivers. The contract between Mr Farrar and Mr Aslam, and Uber, stated that the two were partners and there was no employment relationship between them and the company (McGaughey, 2017). The company also argued that that these drivers were self employed autonomous contractors. In the same year, the two drivers felt that the contract was fraudulent and went to demand to be paid minimum wage as stipulated by the UK’s National Minimum Wage Act of 1998. Also, they wanted to get paid yearly leave under Working Time Regulations Act of 1998 (McGaughey, 2017). The Employment Tribunal argued that the trems and conditions of Uber were schemed to misrepresent to actual relations between the parties and unanimously stated that Mr Farrar and Mr Aslam were employees of Uber and were entitled to holiday pay and minimum wage.
The type of impact the violation had on the organization
Lawsuits, particularly Employment Law Case normally have impact on the organization. Some of the obvious impacts are employees’ turnover and negative publicity. Research has established that increase in employment lawsuit against the organization leads to high turnover. Aslam v Uber BV case was about remuneration. Human resource management theorists found out that there is relationship between remuneration of employees’ turnover. Vecchio and Judy (2010, p.3) claimed that remuneration is a form of extrinsic motivation. In other words employees work expecting to be paid remunerations equal to their labour. However, if this is not done they become less motivated and look for work elsewhere. Similarly, when employees who perform the same tasks are not remunerated equally, workers who are receives less remuneration are likely to be demotived and will eventually leave. In Uber’s case, there was likelihood that Uber were going to pay Mr Farrar and Mr Aslam minimum wage.
Human resource management studies have also established that lawsuits affect the image of the company. The concept of corporate governance claim that member of the society expect a company to pay its employees based on the nature of labor they provide. An organization, which poorly pay its employees expose itself to lawsuits and industrial protests which will ultimately result to negative publicity. Human resource management research established that many candidates are today not attracted to companies which offer low remuneration. In this way, some organization fails to attract qualified and competent employees. However, an organization such as Uber can mitigate such impacts.
One of the ways to mitigate employees’ turnover is through motivation. From the case, Uber could motivate its employees through bonuses, and adequate salaries. Paying employees minimum wage makes them have job satisfaction hence reducing lawsuit of employment nature. Another means of reducing lawsuit and employees’ turnover is to create policies which align with the employment laws. People always look for a loophole when there is a rift between the parties so as to get damages. Having policies with are supported by the law reduce cases of legal tussles.
Determination if a policy was or was not in place during the violation
From the research about Uber, the policy was in place. Uber policy on employment states that drivers are partners and have no employment relationship with the company. Similarly, the same policy states that its drivers are self-employed people who are independent, and have no employees’ obligations with them (McGaughey, 2017). The company claims that drivers are the owners of the cars and they only provide an app. However, the argument violates the employment law of the UK. The National Minimum Wage Act of 1998 under section 1(2) defined an employee as a person who has been contracted to do some work personally. Also, the general English employment act claims that there is a contact in a situation where an individual performs work under the control of another.
Uber drivers normally work under the control and direction of the company; that is to ferry passengers to their destination. The law under section 54(3) also stated that companies must not reduce employees’ basic entitlement. In this case the entitlement was minimum wage. The company violated these laws and was forced to pay the employees based on the law. Nevertheless, the fact that Mr Farrar and Mr Aslam signed the contact implies that they did not understand the terms of engagement leading legal battles. Effective communication is always important in matters of policy and contract. Policies should be written in simple language which enables employees and the interested parties to understand. Complex language in policy making complicates communication between the company and employees leading to conflicts.
Three (3) ways the organization can be free from violation of employment law issues
An organization can be free from violation of employment law by hiring legal expert. Companies operate in times laws are amended by legislators to be up to date with the needs of the citizens. As such, organization requires moving with such pace and be updated of current affairs. Therefore, hiring a legal expert of employment law can save the organization from violation of laws. In most cases organizations make policies which only care for profits but not the rights of employees. The situation put them at loggerheads with e employees. Therefore, organizations can also be free from violation by aligning their policies with country employment laws. Lastly, contemporary managers encourage open communication. Communication enables employees to ask question about the contract and the policies of the organization before signing it.
Conclusion
The research has found out that in employment law cases, Aslam v Uber BV, Uber violated the law by falling to align with the employment law of UK. As a result, it was taken through lawsuit and obligated to pay minimum wage and hold pay. However, on the other hand the case presents a situation of lack of open communication between its employments about its policies. Therefore, the paper concludes that organization must effective communicate its policies to its employees to reduce legal battles in future.
