username5271424
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 11 months ago
#1
----
Last edited by username5271424; 11 months ago
0
reply
Vexper
Badges: 19
#2
Report 11 months ago
#2
Is that literally all you have to go on? It doesn't look promising for X. He looks self-employed to me and is on shaky ground. If you would like to pursue this I would go in for unfair dismissal and argue X as an employee who was proactive in ensuring compliance with Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 under drug/alcohol misuse in the workplace and the employer didn't handle this appropriately. Would really need more info on the contract etc to have a good go at it.

When you say receives grievances what do you mean? Should the higher-up not receive this in the first place as a formality for investigation?

You can't argue it's whistleblowing as it's personal grievances.
Last edited by Vexper; 11 months ago
0
reply
username5271424
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 11 months ago
#3
(Original post by Vexper)
Is that literally all you have to go on? It doesn't look promising for X. He looks self-employed to me and is on shaky ground. If you would like to pursue this I would go in for unfair dismissal and argue X as an employee who was proactive in ensuring compliance with Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 under drug/alcohol misuse in the workplace and the employer didn't handle this appropriately. Would really need more info on the contract etc to have a good go at it.

When you say receives grievances what do you mean? Should the higher-up not receive this in the first place as a formality for investigation?

You can't argue it's whistleblowing as it's personal grievances.
Yeah pretty much that's all that is said about X. In the scenario it says X had received complaints from other members of staff so he decided to investigate himself. Not sure whether it is important that staff went to him to complain, perhaps because he had been working there since 2013 meant he was trusted. Would the amount of years he's been there help him argue he is an employee? and the fact that other members of staff went to him to complain even though his contract says self-employed.
0
reply
Vexper
Badges: 19
#4
Report 11 months ago
#4
(Original post by roseeeey_)
Yeah pretty much that's all that is said about X. In the scenario it says X had received complaints from other members of staff so he decided to investigate himself. Not sure whether it is important that staff went to him to complain, perhaps because he had been working there since 2013 meant he was trusted. Would the amount of years he's been there help him argue he is an employee? and the fact that other members of staff went to him to complain even though his contract says self-employed.
I forgot to note when I originally posted, there's a potential pathway for discrimination - if the drug use was to manage a disability. Althought the scenario doesn't touch upon it, nor even if the grievances had any merit to them. I think it would rely on the contract X had with them and what the disciplinary/grievance policy looked like. Scenario is really lacking in finer details, can't even establish how much control X has over the business to check if there is an employee/employer relationship. Doesn't say X manages those employees. Can't think of anything else to add, other than the foundation which for me offers a foundation for you proceed to employment tribunal;

"There have been numerous cases where judges have had to decide whether a person has entered into or works under a contract of employment. In essence there are four basic requirements that must be fulfilled before it can be said that there is a contract of employment and so a relationship of employer and employee. First, the employer must have undertaken to provide the employee with work for pay. Secondly, the employee must have undertaken to perform work for pay. Those obligations are mutual. The third requirement is that the employee must have undertaken to perform the work personally; he is not entitled to sub-contract the work to another. Fourthly, it is also generally accepted that there is a further requirement before a court will hold that there is a contract of employment between employer and employee, i.e. that the employee agrees that he will be subject to the control of the employer to a certain minimum degree. These obligations have been described as the "irreducible minimum" to produce a contract of employment: Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd v Gardiner [1984] ICR 612 at 623 per Stephenson LJ."

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/1046.html - 74

X has worked with them for 5 years, so this provides that they have paid X for work (touching upon needing to do their own taxes) - the scenario does not touch upon X ceding their responsibility/work to 3rd parties - and in the action of submitting themselves for investigation surrounding grievances does indicate that the employer is in a position of power/control.
Last edited by Vexper; 11 months ago
0
reply
username5271424
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 11 months ago
#5
(Original post by Vexper)
I forgot to note when I originally posted, there's a potential pathway for discrimination - if the drug use was to manage a disability. Althought the scenario doesn't touch upon it, nor even if the grievances had any merit to them. I think it would rely on the contract X had with them and what the disciplinary/grievance policy looked like. Scenario is really lacking in finer details, can't even establish how much control X has over the business to check if there is an employee/employer relationship. Doesn't say X manages those employees. Can't think of anything else to add, other than the foundation which for me offers a foundation for you proceed to employment tribunal;

"There have been numerous cases where judges have had to decide whether a person has entered into or works under a contract of employment. In essence there are four basic requirements that must be fulfilled before it can be said that there is a contract of employment and so a relationship of employer and employee. First, the employer must have undertaken to provide the employee with work for pay. Secondly, the employee must have undertaken to perform work for pay. Those obligations are mutual. The third requirement is that the employee must have undertaken to perform the work personally; he is not entitled to sub-contract the work to another. Fourthly, it is also generally accepted that there is a further requirement before a court will hold that there is a contract of employment between employer and employee, i.e. that the employee agrees that he will be subject to the control of the employer to a certain minimum degree. These obligations have been described as the "irreducible minimum" to produce a contract of employment: Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd v Gardiner [1984] ICR 612 at 623 per Stephenson LJ."

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/1046.html - 74

X has worked with them for 5 years, so this provides that they have paid X for work (touching upon needing to do their own taxes) - the scenario does not touch upon X ceding their responsibility/work to 3rd parties - and in the action of submitting themselves for investigation surrounding grievances does indicate that the employer is in a position of power/control.
Oh wow thank you so much! I appreciate all the help you've given. I just also want to go back to something you said earlier about how this couldn't be whistleblowing? I was thinking that X would be able to make a claim in whistleblowing as the drug use could potentially be a crime and is a failure to comply with legal obligations (therefore, a protected disclosure).

However, his dismissal was not due to disclosure. it is due to a separate issue that occurred - a fight X and the employee who was taking drugs. Therefore, his claim in whistleblowing would fail for that reason?

but do you think it could be argued that the fight broke out because the grievance wasn't dealt with by the higher up ? is there a claim there ?
0
reply
username5271424
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 11 months ago
#6
---
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What factors affect your mental health the most right now?

Anxiousness about lockdown easing (103)
5.15%
Uncertainty around my education (301)
15.04%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (212)
10.59%
Lack of purpose or motivation (278)
13.89%
Lack of support system (eg. teachers, counsellors, delays in care) (89)
4.45%
Impact of lockdown on physical health (114)
5.7%
Loneliness (175)
8.75%
Financial worries (72)
3.6%
Concern about myself or my loves ones getting/having been ill (88)
4.4%
Exposure to negative news/social media (94)
4.7%
Lack of real life entertainment (109)
5.45%
Lack of confidence in making big life decisions (177)
8.85%
Worry about missed opportunities during the pandemic (189)
9.45%

Watched Threads

View All