Legal Encounter 1
In my assessment it is regrettable that Pat was dismissed from his new job just at time when he was trying to adapt to the new environment. Pat relocation from another city 300 miles away, moving his wife and children confirms his fully dedication to the new job as a Newscorp manager. On the other hand Newscorp do not seem to be happy with pat being in the company and therefore the decision to dismiss him. In United States, action for such cases can only be proved in the employment act, industrial relation act or such other laws that defines the association involving an employer and the employee (Richmond, 2006). Pat possesses the legal rights to sue the employer in the court with the jurisdiction to hear such cases.
Pat is liable because he signed a personnel manual detailing among other things the process of dealing with unsatisfactory employee. In this case the personnel manual is an exclusion clause exempting the employer from any liability arising from the contract. The court will determine if the exclusion clause was incorporated into agreement either by notice or by signature. Pat signed some document meaning he accepted the terms and conditions there in. Therefore, he cannot after signing be heard to say that he did not read or understand the content.
The court will also determine if the provision detailing the notice of unsatisfactory performance/corrective action plan was violated. The provision provided that the employee be notified of underperformance and be placed on corrective action plan to see whether he can improve. As a general rule, evidence of underperformance need to be disclosed before any action is taken. News corp may have acted beyond itself ultra vires by dismissing Pat before placing him on a corrective action plan (Katherlyn, 2007, p.3).
News corp have a legal right to appeal within 30 days of the court ruling. Case law can be relied upon to apply the principle of stare decisis which allow the court to rely on the past decision of such a case. The matter can be referred to the independent bodies like industrial relation committee for clear dispute resolution or to the attorney general.
Legal Encounter 2
News corp Company like any other company should keep the interest of its workers at the fore front. Ensuring the workers are healthy does not only benefit a company in terms of productivity but also individual themselves. it is against the law to subject workers to hostile environment that could be detrimental to their health. According to it is even worse for women like Paula who are sensitive due to their biological makeup. According to Sam, Paula is at risk in the wire coating section where she wants to transfer to. News corp have a legal responsibility to unravel whether the chemical in the other department are truly dangerous for the fetus therefore unfit fore Paula. Paula can as well apply to go to any other department. However the management has a prerequisite to decide whether to approve the transfer depending with the outcome of the chemical test and such other reason deemed fit by the management. News corp can be held liable, if it is certified that it acted unreasonably and therefore substantively ultra vires in denying the transfer.
Sexual harassment in the workplace is a violation to human rights. It is imperative to establish any form of sexual harassment between Sam and Paula, .there is evidence of touching and other unwelcome behaviors from Sam which Paula does not want Sam does not seem like he wants to respect Paula’s decision to end the torrid affair. It’s illegal for Sam to sexually harass Paula. It’s also illegal for Sam to block Paula transfer on premise of lack of interest on her part.
Paula’s liability arises when she does not report any form of harassment to the management. News corp becomes liable if it is satisfied that it did not take appropriate action to protect Paula from such form of sexual harassment (Richmond, 2006).
It is also necessary to establish any gender based violence that Paula could be facing in this company. The employment act is very .clear on remedies of such violence. Women are mostly discriminated in work place therefore affecting their productivity in their profession.
Legal Encounter 3
News corp employed Paul in the senior maintenance technician post. I would like to believe that Paul was notified of the nature of job before making decision to take the job. in that notice News corp must have detailed the issue of working in confined places. News corp is not liable for claims raised by Paul if the above is true. The document signed by Paul containing job description is part of material facts that the court will rely on (William & Benson, 2005, pp.321-326).
News corp will also have a liability if satisfied that the operational definition of confined places did not take into account safety of workers. the injured employee could be used as evidence for unsafe working condition that Paul is subjected to safety also include health hazards posed by these confined .Paul complains of irritation caused by the noise and vibration of the machine. In addition Paul became claustrophobic out of working in such conditions. News corp had assessed the place and it deemed it fit for working. The experts used to assess and the criteria used could also be relied upon in the case law to give a ratio decidend .
If satisfied that Paula claustrophobic condition is as a result of his employment in News corp, then the issue of compensation arises. This is an equitable remedy to the damages suffered. The remedy is however discretional and only the court can determine the actual loss suffered. Also the court will determine whether the circumstance justifies the remedy. Monitory award is usually given which seek to bring the innocent party to the state he was before the loss and not more than that (Katherlyn, 2007, p. 13).
Paul is liable if the court is satisfied that he signed and therefore consented to have read a detailed job description before accepting the job. Also the compensation remedy can be rescinded if found that Paul failed to mitigate the loss. This is to the effect that when a breach of law occurs is the duty of the innocent party to take reasonable measures to reduce the loss he is likely to suffer. In this case, if Paul did nothing to avoid developing the claustrophobic condition, then the loss is irrecoverable.
Katherlyn, F. (2007), United Kingdom business legal strategies. (pp. 3-13). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University press
William, H.,Benson G. (2005). Equitability of Virginia law in A.F.Newcomb (Eds)( pp. 321- 326). Virginia,U.S: University of Virginia press
Richmond, W. (2006). American’s industrial relation. Nevada U.S, Winnipeg publishers.