Employment Law--- case study on Whitakers Fine Wines Limited Essay

Employment Law--- case study on Whitakers Fine Wines Limited - Essay Example The additional workload carried out by Adam was due to the implied duties of obedience and trust and confidence on Sarah and Whitakers respectively. A contract of employment is defined by s.230 (2) Employment Rights Act 1996, is subject to general principles of law of contract and comprises of express and implied terms. The express terms are agreed between the parties involved. The agreement can be either oral or written. On the other hand, implied terms can result from either the statute, courts’ interpretation of situations and duties imposed by the common law. It should be noted that unambiguous express terms in a written contract are generally acceptable and conclusive for instance, (Gascol Conventions V Mercer). Additionally, where an employee agrees to that particular term they are bound by it. The express terms cannot be ousted by implied terms. However, there are selected scenarios a precedent dictates implied Duty of Trust and Confidence can override an express term i f exercised unreasonably. Legal matters The Health and Safety at Work At of 1974 defines the basic structure of the workplace. According to the Act, employers have the duty to ensure that the safety, health, and welfare of their workers are assured as much as reasonably practicable. About safety and health, the Act demands that the working environment of all employees should pose no health risks and should be safe to the extent practicably possible. On the other hand, section 7 of the Act stipulates that the employee should cooperate with their employer and other persons in the performance of their duty as much as possible while taking reasonable care for their safety and that of others. Furthermore, the Employment Relations Act (section 44) stipulates that a worker retain the right not to be subjected to detriment because of an employer’s action or inaction. In the case of Adam, the company acted in a manner that may have the posed risk to Adam by subjecting him to overwork that resulted in his state of anxiety and depression. Furthermore, the company failed to act appropriately by not providing an adequate solution to Adam’s problem, which he articulated well in time. One leading cause of injury at the workplace relates to negligence as exemplified in Donoghue Vs Stevenson [1932] and Caparo Vs Dickman [1990] (Feinman, 2010). In this case, negligence appears to have been on the division of the company as it failed to respond appropriately to avoid risking Adam’s life. Adam seems not to have acted in negligence, as he appears to have taken his duty seriously. Apparently, express terms of the engagement did not contain any obligation on Adam’s part to take care for the role of the sick manager, leading to a breach of his employment rights. As observed in Jarrod v. North Devon NHS Primary Care Trust 2006, passing on the responsibility of the absent employee amounts to breach of employment regulations (Personnel Today 2006, para.4). Ad ditionally, the deliberation on the liability of the employer will illustrate the breach of implied terms, where only the employee seems to comply. Whereas his acceptance to serve in the role of the sick employee was voluntary, the management acted in negligence of the agreement that previously relied on the premise that the leave would take short (Cabrillo, 2007). Signs of negligence from the director and human resources officials emerge from the facts given in the case, which can directly relate to the