Case Analysis: Governance Business Ethics and Employment Rights Assignment Help
Evaluate ethical dilemmas in the global environment based on the knowledge of diverse cultural and philosophical traditions that influence behavior.
Reflect on theory and practice to develop and justify solutions for complex management problems relating to ethics and social responsibility.
Are you looking for reliable Case Analysis: Governance Business Ethics and Employment Rights assignment help services? Expertsminds.com is right choice as your study partner!
Introduction
This study will concentrate on the issue of employment rights through the case study analysis of Morris v Metrolink RATP Dev Ltd. The issue underlines a trade union representative's right not to be unethically discharged for taking part in union functions and the possibility for workers to dismiss an overenthusiastic union representative whose conducts in searching to safeguard union members' and employees' interests appears to include misconduct(pjhlaw.co.uk, 2019).It has been seen that the "Employment Appeal Tribunal" supported the appeal of Metrolink RATP Dev Ltd against the decisions of the Employment Tribunal based on the fact that Mr Morris represented entirely irrationally or maliciously in carrying out his trade union operations (as the accused person knew or rationally should have known, that the sources and news had been unjustly achieved). The EAT thus forwarded this case to the Employment Appeal Tribunal to reconsider the causes for Mr Morris' notice(xperthr.co.uk, 2019).Discussion on the case of Morris v Metrolink RATP Dev Ltd is important to find out the ethical practices between trade unions and organizations that could impact on the employment situations and could affect the company operations. The individual misconduct and collective responses against them or vice versa need to be discovered and discussed to understand.
Brief summary of the company
Metrolink RATP Dev Ltd. was achieved by RATP Dev UK Limited. This organization is owned by Stagecoach Metrolink Ltd. that operates the Manchester Metrolink tram network. This provides tram services on the established lines of "Oldham, Rochdale, Droylsden, and Chorlton" in UK. This company was established in 2007 and is based in Manchester (companycheck.co.uk, 2019). The company was originally known as Stagecoach Metrolink Ltd. As a matter of the acquisition of the Stagecoach Metrolink Ltd by RATP Dev UK Limited, this company name has been changed to the present one. There are recently three active organizational directors and no active secretaries as per the current confirmation statement filled on 2018. This company is motivated and dedicated in operating and maintaining the Manchester metro link service system as well as related infrastructure. The suburban or metropolitan consumers land transport is also another organizational project.
It has been seen that operating as an entirely owned subsidiary of the RATP Dev, this organization is assigned with operating and managing the Greater Manchester tram network among 2011 until 2017 under the conditions of its legal contract with the Transport for Greater Manchester, the city's transportation authority (suite.endole.co.uk, 2019). On the other hand, RATP Dev is an international organization, which employs more than 4500 workers in the United Kingdom and further to functioning Greater Manchester's demanding Metrolink; the organization also controls important coach functions around the United Kingdom, functioning an important portion around 1000 of the London's buses as part of it. The RATP Dev also could be designated as the market leader leading sightseeing transportations in the city, Windsor and Bath with the help of its original trip business.
It could be said that within the United Kingdom, the Metrolink services underlies the country's leading and biggest tram services, overseeing around 35 million consumers' journeys over a year, or around 95,000 per day(White, 2016). according to the 2016, this system includes around 93 stops around 100 km of the network with a total number of 120 transports and while controlling a critical network, which sees constant changes, this company is very concerned on providing continuous developments in consumer satisfaction. The results have been confirmed by the outcomes of Passenger Focus survey for light rail found and entire satisfaction level of around 89% of the consumers.
Discussion of the case
Factual background of the case
In June 2014 the Metrolink surveyed employee assessments as part of the rearrangement exercise. Five of the employees have failed the examination, of whom four were WEU members. At the time of this examination procedure, Mr Morris' line manager, Mr Lord-Jones was provided with the consumer services director with facts regrading the performance of the employees. Mr Lord-Jones had recorded the data at that day. later, an unreckonable colleague took pictures of the same data form the documents and these were sent to Mr Lord-Jones. Mr Morris send those pictures to the Human resource team, detailing that he wanted a meeting with Human resource director to talk about the entries as he felt that they were detrimental to the unsuccessful employees (redmans.co.uk, 2019). After that on 19 September 2014, Mr Lord-Jones confirmed to the HR director that he had not provided with any permission to copy the contents of his taken notes. After that, based on the consequences, an investigation was launched and the results of the investigation was that legal proceedings must be taken on charges that "you have kept and have shared secluded and intimatedata that is the property of a manager...".
The employment tribunal Appeal
As per the case requirements, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld Metrolink's request against the decisions of the employment tribunal based on the information that Mr Morris acted entirely illegally or in a suspicious way by carrying out the trade union operations. the employment appeal tribunal thus transferred this case to the Employment Appeal Tribunal for reconsidering the causes of accused's dismissal (bailii.org, 2019) Mr. Morris appealed against the decisions made by the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
The decisions of the court of appeal
The Court of Appeal permitted Mr Morris's appeal, retuning the original employment tribunal's decisions, which Mr Morris had been repeatedly unjust dismissal. The core judgment held that important facts that the employment judge have searchedcould not lead to any conclusions. Mr. Morris had nothing to do with the copyright claims of the document book. However, he had been automatically one-sided dismissed to do with the copyright of the document book, he had simply dismissed. The cause that he had been asked for the copy of the document was that he was taking care of the fact that this may influence the interests of this trade union members. Next, he told the Human resource regrading the copy as soon as possible. It could not be suggested that he had made other copies of the same document.
Argument on the case
The union representative clearly was unaware of the data being so sensitive, therefore he misjudged the situation and went ahead with his plan to make presentation based on the copy of paper that was unlawfully gathered. Currently he is charged with disciplinary actions. However, things could have been much more badly then what it is at the current situation. He could have been a subject to jail if his plead of being guilty was not accepted by the court. Surprisingly the claimant was the Union representative. The information, which he has gathered were very much personal to someone else(Xperthr.co.uk, 2019). The EJ did not applied in section 152 of TULRCA. Therefore, the employment judge chose to ignore the real issues in the case towards the conclusion section of the case. Her failure can be seen in her consideration towards the dismissal for wrongful or unlawful retention of confidential retention. It was based on the unlawful gathering of confidential information for trade union purposes. However, the protection is enjoyed under the section 152. It was automatically dismissed under section 152, which was closely followed by the findings that there was as unfair dismissal under section 98 sub-section 4 of ERA. This was ultimately deepened on the erroneous conclusion under section 152, also failed. The appeal in the same regard was thereby followed.
This could have gone any ways depending on the judge's decision. The unlawful gathering of information, which was dismissed by the court, was the correct decision. However, things could have gone any ways if the information had reflected any wrong doings of any other personal. Having access to the information is perhaps the best thing for any institute. Making the overall confusion and misunderstanding almost obsolete in the working environment. However, given historical data trust has always resulted in the catastrophic way for everyone. The fact of the matter is the appellant was an employee for the respondent company. He had full access to the Metrolink system in Manchester, since the year 2000 to 17th of December 2014. Given his record of accomplishment and reputation, he was given the responsibility of being a supervisor. The changes were demanded based on the exercises held in the Metrolink, which was started in June 2014. The overall role of the supervisor were about to be changed based on the exercises. The line managers were asked to stay away for obeys reasons. As a an assessment was carried out based on the manager's involvement and the result of the assessment was around five of the supervisors were supposed to be dismissed due to some reasons unknown. Around four out of five were the members of the union however very shortly the fifth one joined as well. Perhaps, they had some insight of the matter warning the last member to join in and save his job. It could also be an accident or simple luck that the fifth member joined the trade union. They went as far as to include a MR Armsden.
Even after the appellant in his capacity as representative had made decision to collect some form of grievance on behalf of the employees, he chose to take many points that can be used against them. Everyone is guilty of something, for example, the Metrolink could have dumped many employees without a great cause. The wrongfully gathering of information was dismissed by the court. However, it managed to save a lot of people's job.
The appellant did what he thought was right and necessary to save his job. The court could have seen this side of the story since the primary case contradicts the law; the judge dismissed the case without giving further investigate the matter.
Ethical decision-making approaches and theories
As there is an understanding of five different approaches to a decision-making approach. The above case study is based on the utilitarian approach by the judge. Under this approach, the right and wrong for a subject matter is considered. It can be a very unfair method as because what is right and what is wrong can have different meaning in the different people's mind. The benefits and harms were also considered under this approach (Stazyk and Davis, 2015). If the judge decided to go ahead with the case, the very principal of having something secret and confidential would be contradicted. The theory of utilitarian approach allowed the judge to make the correct decision based on the subject matter not so long after the hearing. This theory looks after the alternative methods for best consequences. This has its own flaws and success. For example, if person A kills person B, person B's wife being very poor demanding money from person A to let go of the matter and person A decided to give money and go ahead and keep his killing as usual. The overall the idea of having to pay money for compensation may seems right under some circumstances, the convict being unpunished for their crimes is wrong for othercircumstances. The judge could have made much better decision and compensate for the loss the convict is going to face after rejecting his clam (Schwartz, 2016).
Right approach method could also be applied in the matter. If the judge had a moral sense, and see the case as it is, the real culprit could have been behind the bars. This theory of decision-making process looks after the moral obligation for a subject matter.
Conclusion
The above study is based on the Metrolink RATP DEV Ltd vs Morris UKEAT / 0113/16/RN. This case was very important as because it involved what is wrong, what is right VS what is lawful, and what is unlawful. Even though Metrolink win the case, it has created a significant mark in the law and judiciary system. The overall case study has been carried out and important parts of the case have been discussed thoroughly.
Expertsminds.com accepts instant and short deadlines order for Case Analysis: Governance Business Ethics and Employment Rights assignment – order today for excellence!