Employer’s Duty of care constitutes employer’s requirements to provide sufficient security in the working premise for the employees to ensure healthy safety precautions, through instructions, supervision and provision of safe working environment. Employer’s duty of care was amended under both the Health and Safety Act at Work of 1974 andCompensation Act 2006. According to HSE, UK, legal requirements suggested that employer’s were under the statutory duty of ensuring safety and health measures for their employees whilst they are working for them. Under the following understanding above, let analyze the scenario and provide concrete judgments.
Explain whether Jake’s actions are in or out of “his scope of employment.”
Jake is legally required to abide to rules and stipulations that have been assigned by the employer (Herman’s) under scope of employment. Contractual relationships of law requires that, all involved parties in the employment contract, are supposed to abide to rules of law and adhere to all employment actions deemed to be right; but where there is breach of one’s duty through unlawful actions, that contract is termed void. In this scenario, Jake’s actions are in scope of employment.
Justification for Jake’s actions is that, Jake agreed to Herman’s (employer) requirement to free oil change, this ensures that Herman’s benefits from the customer who accepts the free service; it is a mutual benefit for the business and the customers. Car owners are able to view the models in the store as they wait for their cars to be serviced (free oil change) by Jake. Jake is responsible for following the rules and regulations applied by Herman. Jake’s fulfills his contractual agreement as long as he his conducting a legal Act enacted by Herman, which provides that, Herman’s (employer) complies to statutory duty of care.
On the other hand, Herman his responsible for ensuring that, he provides health, security and sufficient time to his employee (Jake’s) through Compliance to Health and Safety at Work Act. If an employee, feels stressed or Injured, employee (Jake’s) has the right to terminate the contract. Jake’s renders his services to customer’s cars and twenty more customer’s cars still waiting to be serviced. The enormous task within a short duration of time increases Jake’s stress levels and result to injury on Jake’s thumb, justifying his action for termination of the employment contract. Jake’s rights for safe working environment and Health & safety have also been breached.He has not been provided with protective clothing or material to ensure no injuries (works in unsafe working environment).
Another justification for Jake’s action is that, Herman’s prescribes that Jake should do a lousy job that does not conform to the standard Jake has been trained to do. Jake has all the regal right to terminate the contract if he fills that an element illegal act is involved and he feels that it may lower his professional standards. Herman’s wants just to ensure a free pass to oil Change for his customers, which is unethical. Jakes actions are justified in scope of employment because Jake only, ensures job standardization (requirements for certified Auto Mechanic) and he does not act otherwise.
Explain whether or not Herman is responsible for Jake’s injury
Jake has been injured in the course of work under his employer (Herman’s) premises and according to Safety and health Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984, employer is liable for all injuries pertained to his/her employee. Herman’s does not offer supervision to employees to ensure safe measures are taken in work environment, thus Herman’s breaches statutory duty of care. Herman’s is responsible to Jake’s injury because every employer’s work system should provide sufficient safety handling mechanisms that, ensures compliance with employer’s general duty. Gloves are more suited in handling of mechanic work but Jake, a certified auto mechanic, was injured because there were no protective clothing offered by his employer (Herman’s) in his course of work. We see that, when Herman’s tries to do the same job he gives up and his thumb gets injured, confirming Herman’s negligence act in provision of protective clothing for Jake’s or himself as required by Health and safety at work Act 1974 .
This justifies Herman’s responsibility to injury inflicted to Jake due to Herman’s negligence aspect regarding, safe working environment (under the federal and States law, all employers are responsible for the safety of their employees). According to HSE, UK, all the activities involved in the work system are under liability of the employer’s (Herman’s) and in case of any injuries due to employer negligence, the responsibility falls to the employer.
Explain whether or not Jake should be paid the overtime.
Overtime payment is non-contractual agreement that exists between the employer and the employee; it is accounted for in employee’s rights/Compensation Act 2006 and Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.All overtime payment should be paid to employees by their employers. To support this justification, according to carol (2006) states that, “the standard required time is 40 hrs per week for a professional/ administrative/ executive worker”. If one surpasses that durational time (overtime), he should to be paid fully through a fixed agreement with the employer. Jake has worked two days overtime by changing oil in cars and offering extra services similar to regular work. Herman benefited from the extra timework as more customers came to his auto service shop.
Under Compensation Act 2006, employer should compensate their employees for services rendered in profit of their companies or businesses. Jake has worked thoroughly for two days overtime and yet he has not been paid for the extra hours. The law requires Herman to compensate Jake’s efforts as he performs the same regular work of a certified Auto mechanic during the overtime period. He has been accredited for the work of mechanic and he ought to be paid for any extra time he indulged in the Auto mechanic work; the overtime payment agreements relates to the contractual agreement he agreed as a mechanical worker in Herman’s premises.
Explain the rights Jake and Herman have individually in this scenario.
As employee Jake’s rights include, right to workplace safety and health throughout out the working period, Jake is entitled to this right under the health& safety at work Act 1974. Jake’s should be able to rely on the Herman’s ability to supply sufficient protective clothing in his work premises as Jake changes the oil (HSE, UK. Jake has right to workers compensation benefits, which stipulates that workers should be compensated for any similar job they engage in and compensated for any injuries/illness those results through it. Jake’s has the right to terminate the contract if his demands are not met.
Herman’s rights include, right to terminating the contact if he feels that his employees his not acting according to his principles. According to Dicetak, employers should be obeyed and their rues and regulations should govern the work premises; those who do not comply with ethical contractual business principles should be fired.
In conclusion, employer’s duty of care is essential for sustainability of the employment contract and ensuring of compliance to all the employment Acts.