LAW6006: Spotless Cleaning Solutions Ltd is a contract cleaning company which has enjoyed fast growth over recent years: Employment Law Assignment, AU, UK

Learning Outcomes:

1. Explain the core principles that underpin employment law as it applies in the UK (or Ireland), including common-law, their purpose, origin and practical implications.
2. Advise colleagues about significant legal implications of decisions, plans or proposals in the employment
3. Advice about the appropriate action that should be taken in workplace scenarios where employment regulation
4. Play a leading role in determining the appropriate organisational response when legal action on the part of a worker or employee is anticipated, threatened or taken.

Assessment brief

Spotless Cleaning Solutions Ltd is a contract cleaning company which has enjoyed fast growth over recent years. The company was founded in 2006 by two sisters called Joan and Margery Mopp. They started with three clients and a team of eleven cleaning staff. The company has grown organically since then, steadily winning new contracts, retaining existing ones and employing a few more people each month. By 2011 Spotless employed several hundred cleaners and a team of 35 managers, sales staff and administrators in their head office. In the Spring Joan and Margery decided to retire, selling their company to an entrepreneur called Dave Hose-Cuff.

Dave has plans to grow the company at a much faster rate by acquiring smaller companies and merging them with Spotless while also continuing the strategy of organic expansion.

Since his arrival, Dave has been impressed with most aspects of the Spotless operation, but he is not happy with the way the ten-strong sales team operates. He thinks that the operation lacks coherence, that the staff do not support one another as much as they could and that there is an insufficient drive, enthusiasm and hunger to attract new business. He has therefore fired the existing Sales Director and hired a more dynamic figure in the form of Fran Overshoe. She has extensive sales experience and has been highly successful in previous roles but has not managed a team before and is unfamiliar with the contract cleaning industry.

Soon after starting Fran decided that team-building must be her first priority, and to that end she and Dave Hose-Cuff agreed that the sales team should all be taken away for three days to stay at a country hotel where they will undertake a variety of outdoor team-building tasks designed to help them work better together and raise their level of enthusiasm. The trip will require staff to stay away from home for two nights and to engage in a variety of challenges including abseiling, orienteering and building a raft to get their group from one side of a river to the other. Fran’s partner, a former RAF officer, will be employed to run the training event.

When this plan was announced, most staff in the Spotless sales team responded apathetically. Fran Overshoe stated that everyone must attend, that no excuses would be accepted but that overtime would be paid to all to cover any additional hours that staff spent over and above their usual working day on the programme or travelling to and from the location. While some looked forward to the course, others agreed to come because they felt they had no alternative. A third group, comprising four staff came up with different reasons for not attending and asked Fran and Dave to be excused. The reasons given were as follows:

• Two female members of the sales team said that they could not attend because they were single parents with responsibility for young children. Their childcare responsibilities meant that they could not spend time away from home at such short notice.
• A senior salesman called Richard Buff asked to be excused from attending on the grounds that his ex-girlfriend was due to give birth to their baby that week and that he was intending to take a period of paternity leave at the time of the training
• A recent recruit called Yasmin Fogger stated that she was not prepared to attend because the last time she went on a similar programme some years ago, triggered a relapse of a long-term mental condition and led to a period of stress-induced absence lasting eight months.

These requests not to attend the outdoor team development event were turned down by Fran and Dave. They took the view that everyone’s attendance was vital for the future success of the sales team and that if they were to assent to one request then they would have to agree to all, and this would undermine the whole event.

Two days before the planned start of the outdoor development event Fran receives a formal letter signed by Richard Buff, Yasmin Fogger and the two women with childcare issues. This states that they are all withdrawing, with immediate effect, from the opt-out agreements they signed on appointment allowing the company to require them to work in excess of 48 hours a week. The letter states that in requiring them to attend the three-day outdoor development training course, later that week, their total working hours will exceed 48. For this reason they are not prepared to attend. Fran and Dave decide to reject this demand too. They reply stating that all four staff must attend the outdoor programme and will be subject to disciplinary proceedings if they do not.

The training course goes ahead as planned. All staff attend and find, to their surprise, that they enjoy the experience. It seems that the aim of building the team and its enthusiasm is being met. However, on the final afternoon, an accident occurs which has the opposite effect. During the final orienteering exercise Yasmin Fogger, while running down a steep slope, trips over and falls several feet. She sustains serious head injuries and a broken arm. As a result, she is now in hospital and is not expected to be able to return to work for several months.

1. What possible legal claims might Spotless Cleaning Solutions now find itself facing?
2. What are the strengths and weaknesses of each case? What further information would you need to know in order to give accurate advice?
3. If you were asked to advise the company, which cases would you recommend were settled and which should be contested?

Prepare your 3000-word (+/- 10%) briefing paper. You should make reference to relevant academic research when justifying your key points.

More Same code LAW6006 Assessment Tasks

Tutors have set other Same code LAW6006 tasks on this module too. They are listed below so you can see every version of the brief on one page.

LAW6006: Critically analyze the role and nature of the employment tribunal Is the current structure effective: Employment Law Assignment, AU, UK

Learning Outcomes

1. Critically appraise the nature of the employment relationship and the law relating to the formation, operation, and termination of the employment contract.

2. Contextualise and critically evaluate current developments in employment law.

3. Evaluate arguments and assumptions and make judgments on legal scholarship and research in employment law.

4. Communicate legal arguments in written form using appropriate legal terminology.

Assignment Task

Part A
Critically analyze the role and nature of the employment tribunal. Is the current structure effective given recent issues with legal aid funding and The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013?

Part B

Read the scenario and then answer questions (i) and (ii) below Nigel was employed as an Accounts Manager for a local building firm, McNulty and Co (‘McN’). Nigel started work with McN on the 1st January 1989 when he was 25 years old. During his time as an employee for McN, Nigel always received excellent performance reviews and his final salary was £50,000 per annum. As an employee, Nigel had the benefit of a company car and gym membership at an expensive local gym.

Stephanie is McN’s managing director and was Nigel’s line manager. Stephanie and Nigel have, in the past, been a romantic couple. Nigel ended their relationship two years ago when he met his current wife, Liz.

Nigel believes that Stephanie is jealous of his life with Liz as she is wealthy and Nigel and Liz have been able to go on a lot of holidays over the past year. When Nigel and Stephanie were a couple, money was always very tight, and they were unable to go abroad on holiday. Liz and her brother own a ski lodge in Banff (Canada) and Nigel has now learned to ski; something he refused to do with Stephanie.

On 3rd September, Stephanie received an anonymous call alleging that Nigel had been stealing money from the company. Stephanie called Nigel into a meeting the same day and suspended him on full pay whilst she investigated. Nigel reacted badly and shouted at Stephanie. As Nigel left the room, he kicked over a chair. Stephanie was frightened.

On 3rd October, Stephanie dismissed Nigel saying she no longer trusted him. Stephanie said that in light of Nigel’s long service to the firm she would pay him his notice period, but he must leave immediately. Nigel was too surprised to speak and collected his belongings and left.

Nigel desperately wants his job back. He denies having stolen from the company and feels that Stephanie is getting back at him because of their previous romantic relationship and her jealousy over his marriage to Liz and their lifestyle. Nigel does not believe there was an anonymous phone call.

Nigel has been trying to find another job but without a reference from his former employer and having been dismissed for theft, found this impossible.

Nigel is considering setting up his own building as he has a number of contracts, but it is concerned that he is bound by the following clauses in his contract of employment:

“The employee shall not for a period of 4 months following termination of his employment commence employment with a competitor company within a 25-mile radius.”

“The employee shall not solicit, poach or contact in any way any client of the company for a period of 12 months following termination of his employment.”

Nigel has now sought legal advice and has threatened to start a claim for unfair dismissal.

(i) Advise whether Nigel could succeed in a claim for unfair dismissal. Use relevant case law and legislation to support your answer.

(ii) Following your advice Nigel decides to enter into a negotiation with McN for
settlement of the issues.

Write a negotiation plan which sets out how you would negotiate to achieve Nigel’s aims.

A negotiation plan template is included within the materials. You can use this
template or develop your own plan template. Your negation plan should include
reference to relevant case law and legislation.

Guidance

Your assignment should include a title page containing your student number, the module name, the submission deadline, and the exact word count of your submitted document; the appendices if relevant, and a reference list  You should address all the elements of the assignment task listed below. Please note that tutors will use the assessment criteria set out below in assessing your work.

You must not include your name in your submission because Arden University
operates anonymous marking, which means that markers should not be aware of the identity of the student. However, please do not forget to include your STU number.