Corporate Business Law

Task 1
After reading the facts presented in your case Ms Indiscreet I would have to advise you that you have the potential for a strong case against your previous employers. The course of conduct undertaken by the head of the firm and its human resources department has led to a fundamental breach of your contract and your basic equality rights as an employee, or so I would like to prove.
Firstly an employee should reach a basic status that allows him/her to continue down the route of constructive unfair dismissal. To meet this “employee status” the employee must have been employed for at least 1 year, the employee must also prove that he/she was dismissed and when claiming unfair dismissal the claim must be submitted to a tribunal within three months of the effective date of termination, qualifications are governed by the ERA act 1996. However this test can be satisfied if the employer has no disagreement over the fact you are an employee, which is made fairly obvious by the case and considering you have been working for 10 years.
Now employee status has been confirmed the next stage is to prove you are protected by the law in your actions. Section 95(1)(c) outlines the rights in which to claim constructive dismissal,
(c) The employee terminates the contract under which he is employed (with or without notice) in circumstances in which he is entitled to terminate it without notice by reason of the employer’s conduct
A particular case in 1978 outlines the boundaries in which an employee can leave under constructive dismissal. In Western Excavating v Sharpe [1978] the court of appeal identified the by which constructive dismissal would be assessed
• The employer must have breached a term (express or implied), or had clearly established that he/she would not be bound by the contract
• The term breach must have been an essential or fundamental term
• The employee must have accepted the breach of the contract by the employer and acted to end the employment within a reasonable time
It would be required, by your lawyer, to prove that by ignoring your many complaints about Ms Chatterbox to the head of the firm and to the human resources dept. the company breached a fundamental implied term. The implied term being the mutual trust and confidence that you placed with HR and the head of the firm being broken/abused as well as your equality rights. And then for the lawyer to prove that this breach of the employee’s mutual trust and confidence was fundamental in you having to dismiss yourself.
It is clear that once an issue of harassment victimisation or intimidation has occurred and the head of the firm has been informed by the victim it is his responsibility to investigate. After several appeals by yourself to the head of the firm it is clear that you had to constructively dismiss yourself. The head of the firms reply was to then refuse any of your reasonable requests and then threaten to cease paying you. This type of reaction indirectly takes me to the case of British Home Stores v Burchell [1978], the guidelines to come from this trial were as follow:
The employer must have carried out as much investigation into the matter as was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
When an employee brings a claim of her basic equality rights being broken and the employer does absolutely nothing about it then she has no option but to constructively unfairly dismiss herself as to protect her rights not to be discriminated against

Task 2
Taking on responsibility of employees grievances is a large part an employer’s job, not only to create a happy work environment but to also protect the employer from any libels actions. The ACAS Code of Practice is a very useful tool for people, such as yourself, to help recognise the minimum actions required in nearly all employer employee disputes. ACAS explains a three staged approach on how to handle disputes and dismissals. And although the ACAS