N‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‍‍‌‍‍B: 1,500 words per part Assignment Two – Part One Answer on

N‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‍‍‌‍‍B: 1,500 words per part Assignment Two – Part One Answer one question only Both questions carry equal marks Question One ‘This year (2020) marks 50 years since the Equal Pay Act received royal assent in the UK, meaning employers were prohibited from paying women less than men for the same job. Although unequal pay is now illegal, the gender pay gap – the percentage difference between the average hourly earnings for men and women – persists.’ The Independent, 20th Nov 2020 With reference to the above, consider the problems faced by a claimant in making an equal pay claim in your country. (50 Marks) Question Two ‘The so-called ‘Winter of Discontent’ in 1979, when refuse was left on the streets and cemeteries were unable to inter the dead, left strong images in the public’s mind. It led, some would say, directly to the fall of the Labour Government and the period of Conservative rule that followed when the power of the unions to operate effectively was severely curtailed. Even the CBI argued that some of the legislation in the latter period was unnecessary and went too far’. Textbook on Labour Law; Honeyball and Bower; 2016. With particular reference to recent developments critically assess the extent to which legislation since 1980 eroded the power of trade unions to take industrial action in the UK? (50 Marks) PART TWO Answer the following case study All parts of the question carry equal marks Question One Jenny Berry is the senior manager at Megabyte Ltd, an IT company based in Wrexham. Jenny is generally regarded very favourably by the senior management in the company and is considered an asset. Despite this she does have a reputation of being rather abrupt with her staff. Recently the HR department has received the following complaints: – – Janice was recently sent home by Jenny before meeting a client as she was wearing a low cut black top and high heels. The standard dress code in the company is a white shirt or blouse, black trousers or skirt and flat shoes. Jenny had been informed by other staff to have a word with Janice as the amount of cleavage visible was ‘unprofessional in a business environment’. Jenny had spoken to Janice and told her to go home and change because her ‘Boobs were too big’. – Edward suffers from chronic anxiety and asthma and was recently moved by Jenny from an office function to a customer facing role in the complaints department. This entailed dealing with often very angry customers. This move was made despite Edward’s protests and advice from the occupational health advisor that he should not work in frontline role. – Katie has a prominent social media profile with thousands of followers on Twitter. Last week she tweeted ‘Saying trans-women are women makes the definition of a women meaningless and will undermine protection for vulnerable women’. A staff member contacted Jenny claiming that Katie’s tweets were transphobic. As a result, after a disciplinary meeting Jenny dismissed Katie. Advise Megabyte as to the possible breaches of the Equality Act 2010 in the above (50 Marks) Assignment Guidelines Assignment 2 – Part 1 QUESTION ONE A critical analysis of the procedures in claiming under the equal pay provisions under the Equality Act 1010. Issues to raise include: – The Male Comparator – what are the problems in finding a comparator? Then critically discuss the various routes to claiming equal pay – Like Work – what are the problems with claiming under this heading; – Equivalent Work – any issues with claiming under this heading?; – The Equal Value route – does this meet the criticisms? Discuss the Defences – the Genuine Material Factors Recent reforms – The Kingsmill Report – recommendations of – the equal pay questionnaire which is now incorporated into the EA 2010. Also discuss the time limits for making a claim – how have these changed? Equal pay audits under the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 – how successful have these been? The Small Business Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 – requirement for those with 250+ employees to report on their gender pay gap – how successful has this been? QUESTION TWO This question is asking for an overview of legislation affecting industrial action since 1980. To gain maximum credits students should include the following information: – – The situation before 1979 – the Trade Union Act 1971; The Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875; the Trade Disputes Act 1906 and 1965. The attempt of the Conservative government to alter trade union’s immunity by the Industrial relations Act 1971 and its restoration by the TULRA 1974. – Conservatives in power – the Employment Act 1980 – The Employment Act 1982 – The introduction of balloting by the Trade Union Act 1984 – The Employment Act 1988 – The Employment Act 1990 – The consolidation by the TULR(C A 1992 – Further restrictions on balloting by the TURERA 1993 – The attitude of New Labour and the relaxation of rules on balloting by the Employment Relations Act 1999 and the Employment Relations Act 2004. Mention should also be made of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010. Also discuss the recent trade Union Act 2016 – the main provisions are: – • A strike ballot must currently have the support of a simple majority of those voting. In addition to this, the Act requires at least 50% of all eligible members to have voted, or 40% in certain ‘important public services’. • Unions will have to include additional information in ballot papers, including a clearer description of the trade dispute and the planned industrial action. • Unions will have to give 14 days’ notice of any industrial action (unless the employer agrees that 7 days’ notice is enough). • The Act provides that ballot mandates will expire after 6 months (or 9 months if the employer agrees). • A new transparent process for trade union subscriptions is being introduced that allows new members to make an active ch‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‍‍‌‍‍oice about whether to pay into political funds. • Employers in the public sector (and some private sector employers that provide public services) will have to publish information on ‘facility time’ such as the amount of paid time off for union duties and activities. • The government must commission an independent review of possible methods of electronic balloting. • There will be new powers for the Certification Officer to investigate and take enforcement action against trade unions for breaches of their statutory duties. Students should then consider the likely impact of these – the arguments of those both for and against the reforms should be assessed. Part Two Students should make reference to the following issues: – This particular case study deals with the legal principles laid down in the Equality Act 2010. Students should include an introduction explaining that discrimination against ‘protected characteristics’ can be done directly, indirectly, by victimisation and by harassment. – Janice being sent home for wearing a low cut top. Employers that apply different clothing or appearance rules to men and women leave themselves open to claims of sex discrimination – but is this the case here? This scenario is similar to a relevant case called Lawrence v Q7 Group Ltd T/a Bundles Of Joy Day Nursery: 2300514/2019 – how does this case apply to the case study? Smith v Safeway plc (1996) laid down the principle that differing requirements in a dress code are not necessarily discriminatory, as long as the same rules of smartness or conventionality are applied to men and women Mention could be made of the recent guidance for the government on 17th May 2018 – ‘Dress codes and sex discrimination: what you need to know’ – “Dress policies for men and women do not have to be identical. However, the standards imposed should be equivalent. This means there must be similar or equivalent rules laid down for both male and female employees”, and that “it is best to avoid gender-specific requirements”. – Edward moved from an office function to a customer facing role despite his anxiety and asthma. Similar to the recent case of Caulcutt v DWP 2018. Likely to be disability discrimination based on a failure to make reasonable adjustments – this should be explained. – Katie being fired for being a transphobe – to understand whether this is a justified dismissal based on discrimination by Katie read the judgement in Maya Forstater v CGD Europe and Others: UKEAT/0105/20/JOJ Are Katie’s Tweets protected under the Equality Act? ? Marking Criteria 70 + Demonstrates an excellent understanding of the legal issues that underpin the critical essays and the case study and is able to formulate a full, wholly credible and well-informed response to each of the tasks. Covers all relevant issues fully. Demonstrates familiarity and understanding with the most recent developments in employment law which have relevance to the assessment. A good capacity for critical thinking is evidenced. Makes detailed, appropriate, thoughtful and wholly appropriate recommendations, taking full account of both practical management issues and the expectations of the law. Justifies these to a very high standard. The answers are informed to a high degree by a wide range of appropriate reading and are referenced accordingly. Up-to-date case law is used to back up the key points that are made as well as other sources of information. Clear original arguments are developed and justified. The answers are well-structured and presented very professionally. 60 + Demonstrates good, solid understanding of the major legal issues that are raised in the assessment. Covers most relevant issues fully. Demonstrates some familiarity and understanding of contemporary developments in employment law which have relevance to the assessment. Makes sound, thoughtful and credible recommendations, taking some account of practical management issues as well as the law. Justifies recommendations effectively. The answers are informed by a good range of appropriate reading and are referenced accordingly. Some up-to-date case law is used to back up the key points that are made as well as other sources of information. Some original arguments are developed and justified. Some capacity for critical thinking is evidenced. The answers are nicely-structured and professionally presented. The writing style is clear and concise. 50+ Demonstrates a reasonable understanding of most of the legal issues that underpin the assessment and is able to formulate a sound, well-informed response to each of the three tasks. Makes useful and appropriate recommendations and makes a reasonable attempt at justifying these. Covers a good range of the relevant issues raised in the assessment. Demonstrates some capacity for original analysis. The answers are informed by appropriate reading and are referenced accordingly. Some case references and published material are used to back up key points. The answers are acceptably presented and structured. The writing style is sufficiently clear and concise to be understood. 40+ Demonstrates an adequate understanding of the legal issues that are raised in the case and are able to formulate a reasonably well-informed response to one or more of the tasks. Misses significant points. Rather simplistic in its consideration of the complexities associated with the issues raised. Makes reasonable recommendations but provides barely sufficient, credible justification for them. Covers too few of the relevant issues raised in the case. Demonstrates just sufficient capacity for original analysis, answers are rather descriptive in nature. The answers are just sufficiently informed. Limited reference to case evidence or published examples to back up key points. The answers are adequately presented or structured but not to a professional standard. – 40 Demonstrates an insufficient understanding of the legal issues that are raised in the assessment and is unable to formulate a reasonably well-informed response to one or more of the tasks. Misses significant points. Overly simplistic in its consideration of the complexities associated with the issues raised. Makes poor or inappropriate recommendations or fails to provide sufficient, credible justification for them. Covers too few of the relevant issues raised in the case. Demonstrates insufficient capacity for original analysis, submitting answers which are overly descriptive in nature. The answers are insufficiently informed. Does not reference case evidence or published examples to back up key points. The ‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‍‍‌‍‍answers are not professionally presented or structured. The writing style is insufficiently clear and concise to be understood.