FAMILY ESSAY

Family Essay

Family Essay

Introduction

The paper discusses the case with respect to the employment laws and family law. It discusses the regulation and the practices which are prevalent in the UK employment law with respect to the addressed cases.

Neil's Case

Keeping in view the case of Neil it can be said that the employment law provides flexibility for the emergency situation entitling the employees to inform the supervisors about their absence. Although the employer has the right to say that a person cannot leave the building during the working hours but Neil's case involves the emergency situation. On the other hand, management's decision to dismiss him will be regarded as illegal dismissal. . Illegal dismissal is when an employer terminates an employee in violation of their legal rights. Wrongful dismissal and termination of employment for any reason preclude the possibility of human labour (Galinsky, 1991, 25-36).

The administration should seriously think about to settle the issue with the employee on dismissal amicably (for example, leave the parties agree to payment of employee compensation) or to violate the law. In the latter case, the prospect shines at once to pay the salary is, actually a non-working employee for a long time, the amount of indexation on this salary, taxes (too many), indemnify, and even to "receive" unnecessary and "harmful" employee back. For a small company, such restoration at work can be a serious financial blow (Galinsky, 1991,25-36). Of course, there will be some losses. The company has to ensure that there is a legitimate reason and that it acted reasonable in dismissing the employee for that reason. There are legitimate reasons, which lawfully justify the dismissal and if the company may want to prevent a disgruntled employee to bring an unfair dismissal claim. The company needs to establish that employee conduct was indeed unlawful and dubious. The employee may have had very good reasons for their behaviour. While many supervisors apologize, (which although a courtly gesture, not completely eliminate the unpleasant feelings or prevent the destruction of trust and good will of the employee). Others are able to continue rebuking the worker in order not to appear weak before it. Instead, the supervisor who, actually gives the worker a chance to explain first, often find there is no need to impose discipline (Clark,2001,348-368).

It is not necessary that the worker becomes aware of the thoughts, perhaps unkind and critical, and concerns that are in the mind of the supervisor. I think that allowing employees to explain the facts from his point of view first is the principle more important in labour discipline, and more than any other, one that will save the supervisor to destroy the trust and goodwill that the employee has. He has to prevent the supervisor appears like a fool in the eyes of the other. Another benefit to let him speak first is that it helps reduce stress and emotions(Lewis, 2011,63-75) . In some cases, it may be better delegated to another member of management who can keep calm, if ...