The English Legal System: Why, How Laws are Made

By: Eren
Before one considers what laws are and how they are introduced into a society or a circumstance, it is necessary to consider...
WHY WE HAVE LAW
People's behaviour, sometimes, may lead to generally undesirable outcomes, injurious to one or more others physically or as repugnant. People have sought to establish some rules, to enable the smooth functioning of the societies in which they live, of a kind that themselves can sanction to avoid chaos.
WHAT ARE LAWS
The set of rules that regulate behaviour are laws; and those that regulate human behavior in ways that they can be legally sanctioned if breached are men's Legal Laws.
What the should be the basis of such rules, the extent of the limitations on man's actions, who and how should decide and organize them, apply the sanctions -with what safeguards against injustice and as defined by whom and how, and the growth of society -necessitating variations of them, and other such considerations, are essentially, also part of Law.
There has been the Authoritarian View -that law's intention should be to prevent wickedness, and the moral welfare of the society; and there has been the Libertarian View -that private morality and immorality is one's own business and not of law: e.g., the Misrepresentations Act 1967.
THE AIM OF LAW
The Libertarian view has been mostly preferred, aiming to ensure two things:-
1. Primarily, with minimum conflict with natural law, rules for the survival of the society (e.g. regarding murder, theft -mostly criminal in nature), against human greed and aggression.
2. Secondarily, to make allowance for growth, and complex situations by way of...
a. A system of adjudication for the settling of e.g. mercantile disputes
b. A system of who and how to change the rules as and when necessary
c. A system of recognition of the primary rules themselves as legal rules.
In a non-complex society an elected body should make, and publicize, and sanction, above all, Criminal Law (rules intended primarily for a simple society with a unity of purpose which is, above all, survival -regarded as being best ensured by considering it most important that the norm should not be
deviated from, to enable cohesion and solidarity).
In a complex society there being no unity of purpose and the emphasis being on the interdependency of the members of the society, deviance would not be the most important consideration, and the purpose and the function of any law would be, chiefly, between conflicting individual interests, to maintain a reasonable balance, mostly by Civil Law -for which reason in e.g. European Law the interests of the individual are paramount to those of the state.
ENGLISH LAW
Classification of English Law is as being, both, affected by, and incorporating in part -and increasingly, international law; it comprises of...
INTERNATIONAL LAW and NATIONAL LAW
INTERNATIONAL LAW
Britain must respect and meet the expectations of various international agreements in the application of its laws -whether binding on it or not, to maintain its political standing among other countries; and, often, such expectations are met by its own, voluntary, incorporating of such laws into English law. This is done, mostly, as a condition of its membership of the European Union, as and when it is directed by Europe -as in the case of the level of its water-purity and the European directive regarding a standard common to all member states of it, and as in the case of the requirement to treat as binding on itself e.g. the Single European Act 1986.
NATIONAL LAW
National Law, on the other hand, is that which is made by the state, for the state, and in Britain by its Parliament, intended, within the state, in this case within Britain alone -with variations for Scotland and Northern Ireland, to ensure the non-anarchic organizing and running of the society, in respects from less of consequence to those fundamental, increasingly as written-law, as:-
PRIVATE LAW and PUBLIC LAW
PRIVATE LAW
Private Law regulates the dealings of the individuals with each other within the state, under such headings as:-
Family Law, Tort, Property Law, Commercial Law
Family Law is a good example of the laws in this category; it deals with matters between individuals such as marriage, divorce, and matters arising as related rights -such as the custody of children, e.g. the Family Law Reform Act 1969.
Tort or Torts -as some prefer to call it (from the French word meaning wrong, or wrongs), is the private individual's right -if without financial assistance from the state s/he can, not to be civilly wronged by another, sometimes by an organization, in respects not contractual, sometimes including such as, with a very fine distinguishing line, may fall short of being criminal ~e.g. negligence, or the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957.
Property Law, also called Land Law, deals with matters of property, such as land that in practice is regarded as personal -although 'all land belongs to the Crown', and including matters of dispute over minerals under it and treasure trove, as well as dwellings on it and fittings, often dealt with by the Courts of Chancery -e.g., the Law of Property Act 1925.
Commercial Law comprises of laws of major importance in the dealings of individuals with others, such as:-
Mercantile Law, Consumer Law, and the Law of Contracts
Mercantile Law is the original body of laws that governed commercial dealings ~it was so called because it involved dealings of merchants with each other. As it developed, it concerned itself also with dealings between merchants and the consumer, and the occasional agreements between the individuals -which later grew into separate laws themselves. Almost exclusively, it deals with such matters as competition between traders, trademarks and patents, and e.g., bills of exchange under the Bills of Exchange Act 1982.
Consumer Law is from laws-merchant; it regulates the dealings of the individuals with merchants as to, e.g., the quality, and return, of goods purchased, deeming existent a collective contract between the consumers and any trader, as in the Sale of Goods Act 1977(as amended).
Contract Law is about the, not necessarily regular, agreements of individuals with others, on specific terms offered and accepted (unless under duress or by coercion), intending it to be legally binding, for consideration in return, e.g., under the Misrepresentations Act 1967.
PUBLIC LAW
This branch of the law governs the relationships between the state and other states, and between the individual and the state, under such major headings as:-
Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Criminal Law
Constitutional Law is about the system, the framework, of who and how, and how come to, govern, by which laws how made and applied, as the state; e.g., the Parliaments Acts 1911, 1914.
Administrative Law defines and controls the limits of government, mostly protecting against absolute power, enabling complaints and appeals against the state -e.g., the Human Right Act 1998.
Criminal Law regulates such conduct of the individuals as are regarded to be against the society, actionably, punishably, by the state; e.g. Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LAW
The differences are, mainly, these:-
Public Law are those categories of law, such as Administrative, Constitutional, Criminal, which involve the conduct of the state in relation to itself, or in relation to society generally, through one or more individuals, or the conduct of the individual against the society -mostly through one or more other individuals, in representing the society.
Private Law, i.e., Family, Tort, Property, Commercial -with its branches, chiefly, involves the state as only the arbitrator in personal or collective dealings between the individuals.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CRIMINAL LAW AND CIVIL LAW
IF IT IS CRIMINAL LAW…
1. It is Public Law
2. It is between the state and the individual or organization
3. The state (Crown Prosecution Service) complains, prosecutes)
4. It is registered as R –v- name of the accused (R = Rex/Regina –the monarch)
5. Proof is the states, beyond reasonable doubt
6. It is dealt with by Magistrates, or by Crown Court
7. It is Not Guilty or Guilty and a Sentence –imprisonment/community-service/fine and trial costs unless on legal assistance
IF IT IS CIVIL LAW…
1. It is Private Law
2. Its is between individual/s and/or organization/s
3. The individual/s or the organization sues
4. It is Complainant (plaintiff) –v- Defendant (their names)
5. Proof is on a balance of probabilities
6. It is dealt with by a County Court or the High Court
7. It is a Judgment and the winner is awarded a remedy and, normally, costs
THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS IN ENGLAND
The Sources of English Law
Main sources of law in England are:-
1. Legislation -including Delegated Legislation...
2. Precedent (Judge-made law) -which mostly comprises of the Laws of England and Wales and as (differently) applied in Northern Ireland (the basis being same of the slightly differing Scottish Law -and of the laws of many countries of the British Commonwealth)...
3. European Union Law -which is increasingly becoming the major source of English Law (expecting compliance with also the European Convention on Human Rights -the enhanced version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) -e.g., the Human Rights Act 1998 (implemented in 2000) incorporated into English and all United Kingdom law.
The Legislator, is the Parliament.
The Parliament is the House of Commons, and, the House of Lords -with the Monarch.
The House of Commons are the elected representatives ~mostly from political parties -with committees and 'whips' (who deal, mostly, with the discipline of their members). By "the supremacy of Parliament", in fact, is meant the 'supremacy' of this House -since the Parliament Acts 1911 & 1949 it can bypass the House of Lords, and, since Queen Anne, in 1707, conventionally, to every Act of it the Monarch always assents.
The House of Lords are the unelected representatives, so knighted by the Monarch, some as Hereditary Lords (the eldest son inherits the title) and many increasingly as Life Peers -almost always upon the recommendation of the political parties themselves; the numbers were limited of them with voting rights by the government at the beginning of the 21st century and its members have been considered that should be selected by a panel appointed by government. Its Right to Veto the Commons has been, since 1911, inconsequential, and since 1949 within a year invalid -it serves in effect as a chamber of second opinion and its decisions are not binding on the House of Commons and occasionally have not been followed.
The Monarch, since 1707, may not veto Parliamentary Legislation; but, must formally assent to it -although she does not personally sign it, before it can become legislation.
Legislation is a law, in the form of a Statute. It is formally enacted -or made, by or by the authority of the Parliament, effective when assented to, as an Act of Parliament.
Acts of Parliament, 'Statutes' are laws, produced by the Parliament, and comprise also of less important law, with the authority of the Parliament, as Delegated Legislation.
Delegated Legislation enables the management of major Legislation by the Legislator -Health & Safety Act 1974, the COSSH Regulations 1988.
Statutory Instruments by the Executive's ministers, through other bodies, make effective such Legislation as about health and safety, transport, and as about social-security and taxation.
Orders in Council are by the Monarch with the Privy Council, in cases of emergency -also on appeal from some Commonwealth countries.
By-Laws are made, mostly, by Local Councils (Town Halls as, or as part of, County Halls) -by locally and independently elected town or county mayors and councilors with knowledge of their individual districts.
The advantages of delegating legislation is that it enables saving time, expertise, and flexibility; the disadvantages are that it gives wide powers to make laws without debate and which may not be as much publicized as the Acts of Parliament themselves and as much known to the public.
Legislating
A Bill is a proposed legislation normally producing an Act of Parliament -it normally begins with one or another type of Bill being introduced.
Types of Bills
The type of a Bill depends on who propose the legislation -as follows...
Public Bills by government, proposing legislation affecting the nation as a whole -were so introduced the Criminal Disorder Act 1998, and, the Access to Justice Act 1999.
Private Member's Bills by members of Parliament, which may be of national effect -the Arbitration Act 1967, the Disability Discrimination Act 1996, both, began so.
Private Bills by individuals, through a member of Parliament, affecting fewer -such a bill proposed the University College London Act 1996.
A Bill, with slightly variations depending on its type, before becoming Law, goes through a number of stages.
Stages of a Bill
The Stages of a Bill are, sometimes strictly, with adherence to set procedures, Readings, at both the House of Commons and the House of Lords:-
The First Reading involves formally, mostly, Naming the Bill, with its date, and making available printed copies of it, normally, with no, or very little, debate on it...
The Second Reading involves Explaining the Bill -debating its general principles, and voting on it...
The Committee Stage involves the political parties, which are represented proportionately, putting forward their views -or expert opinion being obtained on it; and at the Report Stage the House being informed of these and the Bill being voted on.
'Division' sometimes takes place on how to vote on the Bill among the Members of Parliament, and when so, an Eight-Minute Break is allowed them and their Party Whips to discuss it and to decide how to vote on it.
The Third Reading, usually, is, with any verbal amendments to the Bill, the final vote.
This procedure is followed by both of the Houses of Parliament, except that Bills may begin not at the House of Lords if they are to do with such matters as taxation.
The Royal Assent involves the Signing of a Bill that has gone through all of its previous stages successfully, by the Monarch ~but the Monarch need not, and does not, personally sign it -conventionally, the Monarch does not refuse; and, unless stated that it will become so after a time interval, from then on a Bill becomes formally an Act of Parliament, Law which often authorizes delegated legislation too.
It is considered essential to inform the public of the laws proposed and of the laws made, and this is done, at different stages, by way of publishing a White Paper, a Green Paper, and a Statute -delegated legislation also being made in printed form publicly available.
These procedures may sometimes be confusing: e.g., section 6 of Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1985 was a Bill introduced as being intended to be of psychological effect only and not of any legal effect before passing all of its stages and becoming Law.
JUDGE MADE LAW
Precedent, briefly. Britain, unlike the USA and the European Union countries, not having a Written Constitution, Codes of Law enacted by the representatives of the people, English Law is based on Common Law -judge-made law ~judges interpret and (also in those criminal cases where that it is increasingly considered by the government that should not sit juries) apply the law.
Where 'Written Law' -an Act of Parliament, does exists, they do so under Rules formulated by the English Courts, such as:-
The Literal Rule -where the Court does not consider the written law to require judicial interpretation, literally taking the words of the Statute…
The Golden Rule -if they consider the literary meaning to be, e.g., absurd of any Written Law, interpreting it as they would consider not perverse.
The Mischief Rule -if the Court considers it must interpret the purpose of the written law -the Intentions of Parliament, which they do under the Interpretations Act 1889 -barring reference to the Hansard (the official transcript of all words spoken in the Parliament -placed in its library).
These Rules are sometimes confusingly stated, and in relation to appeals, e.g. from cases under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, its is stated that "no issue of law arises if the Tribunal simply misunderstood or misapplied the facts" -following reference to precedent that an issue of law arises if a decision is "inconsistent with the evidence".
A Decision, in English Law, consists of two parts, the 'Ratio Decidendi', and the 'Obiter Dicta' -the former being Precedent, the binding part, which sets out what the Principle is ~the latter being things said by the way -which are not binding but may be persuasive.
Until the late 1990's English courts and tribunals did not have to give reasons for their decisions, including in civil cases in which juries do not normally sit in Britain -European Law now requires them to do so, often if within a specific period of time ask to do so.
The Principle, unless 'distinguished' becomes 'Precedent' binding on all lower courts, and in the case of the Court of Appeal also on itself.
Precedent are reported by the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting in the Weekly Law Reports (WLR) officially, and privately in e.g., the All England Law Reports (AELR).
Precedent, to all intents and purposes, is Law until it is reversed by a higher national Court or by the European Court, or becomes obsolete by an Act of Parliament, or by European Union Law.
Judge-made Law is regarded mainly to have the advantage of being not rigid and enabling for changes more quickly than it may take parliament to make them -its disadvantage is considered to be that unlike as in the case of Codes it is law which is not by elected representatives of people.
PARLIAMENTARY SUPREMACY
The Presumption of the Supremacy of the British Parliament in respect of English Law is, briefly, based on the Monarch no longer refusing to give assent to a Bill passed by the Parliament, coupled with that of Precedent being in line with the Intentions of Parliament.
The Inconsistency of that presumption has been proposed on the fact of the European Law (including the decisions of the European Court and of its 'national branches' which are empowered to declare any law made by the British Parliament 'not law' and of no legal effect where it is the view of Europe that Britain ought not to have such a law -e.g., for the reason that it contravenes the Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights) being binding on the United Kingdom Government and on its Courts -as on all other member states of it.
Laws in the European Union states continue increasingly and rapidly to change in the course of commonization of various laws, and in Britain, within a short time of a Department of Constitutional Affairs being created in addition to the Lord Chancellor’s Department, also a Ministry of Justice was added –it is wise when it may otherwise be of consequence to always ascertain what current laws are.
The author has a website at: http://www.geocities.com/eoa_uk
Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/law-articles/the-english-legal-system-why-how-laws-are-made-155918.html
About the Author:
The author's favourite site is the Teacher of Teachers

Understanding The Law.... Insurance Law

Author: Nominate A Lawyer
T
Q. Our home recently burnt down accidentally and now the insurance company is refusing to pay the claim due to the presence of white ants although we had another claim some years ago which was assessed and adjusted by their representative and the claim paid with the white ant damage being noted at that time with ongoing renewals continuing to be offered without condition. Can they do that?
A. No. Any insurers who deny claims for these reasons have little understanding of how their policy operates as they suffered no prejudice with the operating cause being fire not white ant damage provided it has not become worse and the fire was not set to cover this up.
Q. I recently went to my chiropractor for manipulations to my neck to assist with pain management and now six months later I am far worse off than before. What can I do?
A. It would appear that the manipulations were not successful and this may be due to a failure by the chiropractor to adopt the standard of care appropriate to treat your condition which may allow you to sue him in negligence for damages.
Q. I recently went out with some friends on a Friday night and became slightly the worse for wear. Although the events of that are rather hazy I do recall that we got into a fight in which I was injured. I was taken to hospital and had treatment for various bruises, lacerations and abrasions to my body. The next day on going back to collect my car I found it had been badly damaged during the course of the fight. I claimed against my insurance company but they have refused to pay it suggesting that I was responsible for causing the damage to it. What can I do?
A. Obviously you would be able to prove there was a fight and you suffered injuries and were taken to hospital. As a result, as there would be no difficulty in determining where the fight scene was which I assume to be adjacent to your motor vehicle then in these circumstances provided your bonafides are not in doubt then the insurer should pay your claim and if they do not then you have remedies at law. Suffice to say a comprehensive motor vehicle policy covers all types of accidental damage which occurs to a motor vehicle.
Q. I was involved in a car accident and I have lodged a third party claim with the other driver’s insurance company who are refusing to pay saying that I caused the accident which is incorrect because the other driver smashed into me from the right hand side. What should I do?
A. You need to find a solicitor who is an expert in insurance property damage claims as they possess fundamentally different knowledge from personal injury lawyers who deal with workers compensation, motor accident acts claims and public liability/personal injury matters. A property damage insurance lawyer will be able to address the necessary problems you confront and should be able to get the claim paid by the other party’s insurer.
Q. Recently my son was at a sporting activity where he was playing up, physically abused by his teacher and forced to leave the event to seek medical attention as a result. Do we have a claim for professional negligence against the teacher or school as I wish to teach them a lesson?
A. Although you would be entitled to make a claim against both the school and the teacher, the question is whether you would be successful in damages. The simple answer in New South Wales is no, unless your child sustained serious ongoing injury or has suffered serious psychiatric illness. Since the medical evidence indicates that he will make a full recovery, the school should be approached to take disciplinary action against his teacher.
Q. Recently I took a couple of my newly born pups to see a local vet where they contracted a virus and subsequently died. What should I do?
A. To put it simply, you should contact the vet and say that you are looking for an apology and compensation. If the animals were not particularly valuable then it would not appear to be a case in which it would justify you retaining a solicitor. Do the best you can in the circumstances.
Q. What happens if someone communicates a full transcript of what a member of parliament said in parliament through the media which has had the effect of seriously impacting my business?
A. This does not amount to defamation as it is the record of a conversation the subject of parliamentary privilege and where true there is no damage at law.
Q. Recently my son was overcome by a smoke machine at a school function which triggered a severe asthma attack, resulting in him being rushed to hospital and admitted to intensive care where he responded to treatment. Is there anything we can do in the circumstances?
A. No. Although you have the potential to pursue a personal injury claim on behalf of your son, the fact that he is in the process of making a full recovery precludes you taking action for damages at common law.About the AuthorNominate a Lawyer is a network of carefully selected, highly qualified insurance lawyers in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.
Published At: www.Isnare.comPermanent Link: http://www.isnare.com/?aid=134760&ca=Legal

Understanding The Law... Employment Law

Author: Nominate A Lawyer
T
Q. Following the introduction of Workchoices earlier this year although I work for a company having less than 100 employees do I still have any remedies left?
A. Yes. You are entitled to bring an action against your employer where there has either been a breach of an express or implied term of your contract of employment.
Q. Although the company for whom I am working is not meeting budget the area in which I work has exceeded budget but I am being put under increasing pressure to improve output?
A. All employers have managerial prerogative but where this is unreasonably exceeded and this has been raised with them, this can constitute a breach of your contract of employment. The particular circumstances which apply are extremely important in assessing the extent to which an employee has an available remedy.
Q. I approached my employer asking could I take leave without pay and they asked me to resign on the basis that when I returned all I had to do was reapply for my old position and it would be given back to me. I did this and on my return I put in my job application and other applicants were successful and I was refused. Can my employer do this?
A. No, as any employer who does this is contractually bound to fulfil the terms and conditions of the verbal contract entered into with their employee and if they fail to do so it is enforceable.
Q. My boss came to me and asked me to admit someone to our computer network without the property authorisation. I refused to comply and ever since I have been singled out by him and serially abused, ignored and made to feel unwelcome. Is there anything I can do?
A. Yes. It appears that you are being harassed and bullied and as a result you can seek redress from your employer.
Q. I have been working with the same company for in excess of 10 years and recently a new manager was appointed to my department. He has been riding everyone but particularly myself as it appears he wishes to make changes and bring in his own supporters. I am under stress and my health has deteriorated as a result. What should I do?
A. If you are under-performing then you should address the performance issues as quickly as possible otherwise the manager may terminate your services for any of a number of reasons including poor performance or operational considerations. If it be that you are being ridden and performance-managed in an endeavour to either get you to resign or be terminated then there are a range of things you can do. They include everything from unfair dismissal to suing for breach of contract, including breach of implied terms, which are extremely important in this context. Bullying and harassment should not be forgotten and if there is any hint of some form of actionable discrimination then this should be pursued also.
Q. I was recently fired for serious and wilful misconduct because my employer thought I had taken stock without paying or accounting for it. What should I do?
A. If you have been summarily dismissed and your employer has refused to allow you to explain the situation either thoroughly or at all then you are entitled to take action against him/her either for unfair dismissal if available or breach of contract.
Q. Recently I applied for a job and after the second interview was told by the recruitment agency that I had it. Subsequently I received a telephone call stating that they needed to carry out a criminal record check and I advised them of a minor transgression which had been dealt with by the court not leading to conviction. After this things got out of control and the agency told me that my application was unacceptable to their client and I should look elsewhere for employment. What should I do in the circumstances?
A. Obviously the agency offered you a job which you accepted and they badly handled the matter when explaining this to their client such that the problem is theirs, not yours. In these circumstances you are entitled to take action but the question becomes whether this will prove to be cost effective and will the amount to be obtained either as compensation or damages be sufficient in the circumstances.
Q. I am currently working for a very intense person who is overbearing and difficult who constantly threatens and swears at everyone yelling at them and standing over them unfairly pushing them to do as much work as possible. What should I do in the circumstances?
A. Given the type of work environment it is obvious you have a right to proceed against your employer for bullying and harassment. Not only are you able to do this under the general law but if it is having an impact on you there may be issues associated with the Occupational Health and Safety Act as well.
Q. I work for a government department and believe they are trying to get rid of me saying that my size interferes with my ability to carry out my work. I feel uncomfortable, as I believe I am being set up and the union is also involved. What can I do in these circumstances?
A. As you know with all government departments there are fixed procedures which need to be followed and if they are not issues such as the lack of procedural fairness will arise. In all of these cases it is important to find out what your employer is planning and should they invite you to attend a meeting to discuss your future then make a request of them that you be allowed to bring a support person with you, preferably your solicitor. Normally this would be agreed to and it is a far better way to proceed as your employer will have at least two people in the room when you are interviewed. Government departments normally follow a very lengthy process before an employee’s services are terminated.
Q. I was formerly employed by a company which has gone into liquidation owing me approximately $12,000 in unpaid wages. Is there anything I can do about this?
A. The best thing you can do would be to approach GEERS and see whether you are entitled to some form of compensation from them. Of course they will require proof of your entitlements and the best way to do this is to furnish them with whatever pay slips you currently hold. If you have lost or destroyed these documents then you will need to approach GEERS as to what other forms of proof they will accept to validate your entitlements.
Q. Since the Federal Government introduced Workchoices I am really confused as to whether there are remedies apart from the Workchoices legislation?
A. Most people are aware that provided you are working for a constitutional corporation the landscape for unfair dismissal claims has changed markedly. If you work for a company which has less than 100 employees then unfair dismissal is no longer an option for you whereas where you are working for a company with more than 100 employees then you are entitled to bring an action for unfair dismissal or unlawful termination provided you are a full time employee. In addition claims which can be made include breach of contract, breach of the Trade Practices Act, misrepresentation and anti-discrimination.
Q. I am having a number of issues with my boss at work due to his behaviour as he frequently swears, writes threatening emails, bullies, sets unreasonable deadlines and is trying to performance-manage me out of the operation. What can I do?
A. Obviously if you have been with your employer for some years and provided your earlier performance is in contra-distinction to what he is now saying then you would have a number of legal remedies available to you. It is essential in cases like this to make sure that you do everything possible to acquit at work to avoid criticism. Remember you can retain a solicitor to intercede with your employer and if this does not work then pursue your legal remedies.
Q. I was hired by an accountancy firm and terminated without notice without any reason given for my dismissal. Do I have any right of recourse?
A. Yes. Generally speaking the courts take an extremely poor view of someone being terminated without just cause and where no reason has been supplied. Obviously you need to see a lawyer to make sure your position is fully protected.
Q. This year I went to an office function and become a little untidy. Whilst I was taking photographs a girl lent over in front of me and I took a shot of her cleavage. After sobering up I suddenly realised there could be issues and I discovered that one of the persons to whom I had sent all the photographs including the one of the girl, had circulated this to everybody in the office. What should I do?
A. The first thing is to go and apologise to the girl and make sure there is no ill will between you. Next you should explain to your employer what your circumstances are and apologise to them for any inconvenience or problems that might result. Provided this works there should be no complaints of sexual harassment and the matter should die a natural death. If the matter escalates then you may be in trouble for serious and wilful misconduct and your services terminated.
Q. Recently I was retrenched and given one month’s pay in lieu of notice together with my current month’s salary. Unfortunately I was not paid for my annual leave or my current bonus which it vested and my unvested bonus which is now due and payable. What should I do?
A. You are entitled to take action to recover these outstanding monies, the only issue may be in regard to the current bonus which was not vested at the time your services were terminated.
Q. Approximately two years ago I joined a car dealership which is rather old-fashioned in the manner in which it transacts business between the finance and sales departments. An insurance provider suggested to the management that I was not doing my job properly and as a result I have been reprimanded being held responsible for the poor performance of my area which is ludicrous as the sales for this year in my area are the same as last year when the market was booming. What should I do?
A. As both departments have not been integrated it is hard to see how you could be blamed for this situation, particularly as the downturn was in new car sales and not insurance products which are performing in line with the previous year. It seems that your department must be more effective this year than last as you must be converting more deals this year to maintain last year’s figures. Irrespective you need someone to intercede on your behalf with your employer to cogently put your point of view and if they are unaccepting of this and your services terminated then you should proceed against them for unfair dismissal and look at what reasonable prospects you may have of proceeding against the insurer for defamation.
Q. I have been with the company as a permanent-casual in excess of 10 years and am wondering whether or not I can make an application to become a permanent employee?
A. Yes. Any employed person who has been working continuously and systematically for an employer for either 6 or 12 months is a deemed permanent employee and all that has to be done is to make application to the employer to convert your status. If anything negative transpires approach a lawyer to enforce your rights.About the AuthorNominate a Lawyer is a network of carefully selected, highly qualified employment lawyers in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.
Published At: www.Isnare.comPermanent Link: http://www.isnare.com/?aid=133973&ca=Legal