Employment Law- Changes in Company Policy
Some laws and policies guide dressing and clothing in a workplace in every society. In a case of any misunderstanding between the employer and the employee, the state law should be the reference. Despite the state laws, each organization has laws which it applies to guide the workplace uniforms. Furthermore, they need to abide by the national standards and internal standards human rights.
Most companies tend to strive to create a working environment that is conducive for both the workers and the customers. The dress code is one of the ways to achieve this goal because it keeps the parties involved from distractions and unnecessary annoyances in case the regulations stated are not followed. The companies may argue that these guidelines are critical for their prosperity. The reason for this could be that they believe that the working environment needs to portray a business-like image if it intends to attract and keep clients interested. Some organizations state strict rules regarding this specific procedure and even set internal corrective measures that can be effected on the workers that fail to adhere to the laws and show up at work in casual attire.
Failure to comply with the state law attracts legal attention. In our case of Summerville RSL bar, they have their laws which employees have to adhere. In this letter, I am going to address the issue between you and your employee. Again, I’m going to provide alternatives that will help you avoid termination of your contract.
First, I went through the policies of your company and came with following conclusions. It is clear that you had a good relationship with the former manager before the management was reshuffled. It is possible that the new manager is not conversant with the law about the change in policies of an organization because it is evident the change of the rules was against the employees’ consent. I will make you understand the process that should be followed by the modification of company policy.
According to the policies of your business, it is explained that the firm does not expect to change the initial laws set by the employer. However, the employer can modify the law. Besides, he can modify the law if only it has consideration accompanied to it. There a procedure that should be followed. The first requirement is that the employer should initiate the change of the employment contract and consented by the employees.
This law is coded from the case that happened in the year 1995 March . The other requirement is that the content reached the two parties need to have consented freely. There should be no use of force to make the employees accept the laws. In the same note, you should not force the employer to initiate new legislation. Again, the consent must be in a manner such that is it more that the just “a reluctant acceptance”. It means that the acceptance of the laws should not be compromised by the either of the parties. In other words, the parties should accept the rules willingly.
This requirement can also be explained by the context of the law of contracts. For the changes to be effected and to become binding, it must have a new consideration. For instance, if the employee happens to changes the law, let us say making them harder, he must give new consideration such as an allowance or higher pay.
There are few cases where the employer is accepted to change laws, but they should still abide by the rules of contract engagement. A potential argument for an organization can be that he is willing to modify the existing directives to replace them with new guidelines that are more efficient.
As you are aware, no business can exist without directives. However, the guidelines introduced in business should not affect the wellbeing and the human rights of the employer. It is arguable that policy is very different from the directive.
The other point of argument existing in the context of employment law is the survival of the common law. The common law does not how individual wrongs should be treated such as fraudulent misinterpretation, and negligence misstatement. It remains resilient on these issues. The reason it does not address these problems is because the common law relies on the cases that were done before.
The context to which these rules is applied should be checked. However, based on your case, the common law addresses this issue. It is because there are many cases similar to this that happened before. The common law uses the facts and issues to judge and give the remedy. Based on that understanding, I would like to give the options available that can make you fight against the termination of your contract.
The first option is to launch a legal case with your employer. I am going to give you the claims that you are going to present. The first claim under the initial contract with your former manager, the contract did not prohibit you from having tattoos on your body. However, the new agreement does not allow you to have a tattoo that can be seen by customers during the service. Here, the main claim will be the procedure under which the policy was changed.
The right procedure was not followed; company policies states that for the employee to change the company laws there must be an agreement between the employer and the employee. It further states that the consent should be freely agreed upon. The new manager changed the law without an agreement of all the employees because you are among the employees, and you did not agree. Alternatively, you can argue on the provocation of common law. There are many laws presented in court which have similar facts and issues as yours. The lawyer can use these facts to judge your case similar to those.
The other option that can help you to secure the job is considering out of our agreement with your employer. A rational person should be able to notice that by the time you put the tattoo, it was not illegal in your job. Under the past tenure, it was not wrong to have a tattoo. Explain to the manager how the tattoo is meaningful to you. Further, go ahead and tell him how the customers are impressed by the tattoo.
But to claim, I will advise you choosing the first option since the law protects it. In this option, the manager can be forced to retain you retain you in the promises. What you should be keen on is to prove to the court of law that the process of the induction of new policy was illegal and against the law. Prove before the jury that there was no consent between you and the employer. The other defense you applicable is an invocation of common law by giving examples of such cases that were ruled in the favor of the plaintiff.
Reference List
Deakin, S. F. & Morris, G. S., 2012. Labour law. S.l.: Hart Publishing.
Freedland, M., 2007. The personal employment contract. 1st ed. s.l.: OUP.
McMahon, E., 2007. Australia Crossed-Over, Images of Cross-Dressing in Australian Art and Culture. Art and Australia, 34(3), pp. 372-379.
Smith, S. A. & Atiyah, P. S., 2006. Introduction to the Law of Contrac. Oxford: OUP.
Stewart, A., 2008. Stewart's guide to employment law. 3rd ed. s.l.: Federation Press.
