Work Place Law The Other Firms on a Casual Basis

Question: Discuss about the Work Place Law. Answer: Maisy was hired in the year January 2014 by a labor hiring company. She was reentering the work after 2 years. Maisy worked with other firms on a casual basis. In May 2015, IS was satisfied with the work of Maisy. She worked full time for them since December 2015. IS would pay to her as per the hourly work contributed by her. She used to accept the direction from IS on a daily basis. As she is the full time employee of the company and contributing towards the work through her dedication and hard work, she will be considered as the full time employee of the company and shall enjoy all the privileges that an employee can enjoy. She is not paid when she takes the career or sick leaves. She wore the IS uniform and used to receive training in the account system for every Friday afternoons. Maisy made her own superannuation and the taxation payments. IS instructed Maisy about her hour of work , duties and for whom she would be working for. Maisy met with an accident at work. While carrying office equipment, she slipped and fell down. There was a residual coating on the stair even if the cleaner has mopped the oil. She got injured her back, arm and shoulder. She asked IS to pay her medical expenses and took a couple of week off. They were reimbursed in full. Maisy had a sore back as well as shoulder. Maisy saw a job advertisement in the early December 2015. It was for an office worker at IS. She made an application but did not succeed. She was not aware that the position applied will make her continued service obsolete. She was informed by IS, that she will receive two weeks pay in lieu of notice. She did not receive any further work allocation. In this case, Maisy is the full time employee of the company. She is devoting her full time work towards the company. She is also entitled to superannuation from her salary. As, she fell down during her working hour, she is also entitled for the compensation. She is appointed by the IS company and is provided the training in the accounting system on every Friday afternoon. Thus, she enjoys all the privileges of the employees of IS company. She made an application in the earlier December 2015, though it was not clarified by the company, that her application will make the appointment obsolete. As, she has been appointed as an employee of the company on a full time basis, in the month of December 2015, application in the same for the different position will make her job obsolete. It is the fault on both the side as she made the application in the early December 2015 and the company did not clarify the disadvantages behind making such application. The company should make such clarifications. The following are some of the questions asked Is Maisy an employee or another type of worker? Maisy is an employee of the company. As, She has been appointed by the IS company. She contributes towards the company. She works on a full time basis. She is paid salary for the services she renders. She is given training in the accounting system by the department. She is also entitled for the superannuation. She is entitles for the medical expenses reimbursement for the accident that took place during the working hour. As, she enjoys all the benefits of an employee of the company, she is thus considered to be the employee of the company and not the other type of worker. According to the work place law, in order to be the employee of the company, that person should contribute towards the company. The person should be appointed as an employee of the company. That person is entitled for the compensation. That person is responsible towards the company and will not disclose the facts and figures of the company. Suitable training is provided to that person in order to improve the performance. Based on the work done, the person is entitled for the salary. This salary is on monthly basis. As, the company decides to pay Maisy on a hourly basis, her services will not be calculated under the full time employee of the company. She will be considered to be the other type of worker of the company who is paid based on the hourly work contributed. Thus, in this case, Maisy is not an employee but an other type of worker. Assuming Maisy is an employee, who is Maisys employer, Technicalities or IS? If Maisy is the employee of the company, IS is the employer of the Maisy. As, IS is the Company which has hired Maisy and Maisy contribute her work towards the IS. She is paid for the compensation and medical expenses by the IS company. She is paid on the hourly basis by the IS company. She is therefore employed as an employee of IS company. She is also entitled for the superannuation. She is provided weekly training of the accounting system on every Friday. Employer is the one to whom the employee is responsible and who pays the employee for the services rendered by him. Here in this case, Maisy is paid by the Employer IS company for the hourly work contributed. She is responsible towards the IS company. Before making any application for a new job, she should keep the employer informed about the same as it is her responsibility. She is therefore, the employee of the IS company who is responsible towards her. Disclosure of all facts need to be made to the employer as it is the part o f responsibility of an employee towards the company. Thus, In this case, Maisys Employer is the IS company. Assuming Maisy is an employee, has Maisys employer breached any contractual duty owed to her? It is the responsibility of every employer to disclose all the facts and figures towards the employee of the company. Before, the removal of an employee, it is necessary to clarify all the points. Both the employee and the employer should be responsible towards each other. Employee should contribute their work honestly towards the company. It should be responsible towards each aspect of the company. It is the responsibility of every employer to clarify all the points before the removal of an employee. Employee should be heard before their removal. Here, in this case, the employer did not clarify that if the existing employee is making an application for the position in the IS company, their appointment will stand obsolete. Without knowing this fact, Maisy made an application for the same. As, she was unaware of this fact and made an application, she should be given on more opportunity instead of direct removal. In this case, she was removed by an employer with the fact of her application. In such a case, she was not even given a warning neither an opportunity of being heard by a direct removal. This shows that there is a breach of contractual relationship. Employer should disclose all the facts of the job before making the advertisement for the job. There was no disclosure made by the IS company, that if the existing employee is making application for the advertised job, their appointment will stand obsolete. Without knowing this fact, Maisy made an application. Thus, in this whole case, Maisy is innocent. She should be given an opportunity of being heard. Instead of the harsh punishment of her removal, she should be given a chance to correct her self. Thus, the employer has breach the contract in this case, which required to be rectified by him. Thus, it clear from the above, that Maisy is the full time employee of the company and she is responsible towards the company. Maisy should not be removed on the ground that she has applied for some other position of the same company. She should be given an opportunity of being heard so as to find the reason behind such application instead of removing her. Thus, the decision of the company to remove Maisy and to pay her for the two weeks are not acceptable and is breach to the contractual relationship between the employer and the employee of the company which should be taken care of. In order to maintain good and healthy relation there is a need of clarification as well as responsibility towards each other. This will help in removing the misunderstanding and in carrying out the healthy relation within the organisation. Reference Aspects of the law relating to AIDS. (1997). Pretoria. Edge, P. (2006).Religion and law. Aldershot, England: Ashgate. Fair Labor Standards Act. (1999). Washington, D.C. Haack, S. (2008).Putting philosophy to work. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. Kahn, P. (2008).Putting liberalism in its place. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Law, L. (2000).Sex work in Southeast Asia. London: Routledge.