Employment Law Laws That Protect Employees In The Workplace

In the nineteenth century and parts of the twentieth century, employees and employers were largely left to themselves to arrange a working agreement, including payment, work conditions, and so on. Employees had to trust that their employers would treat them fairly, and employers knew that if they didn’t treat their workers well, they might leave to work somewhere else. Although this arrangement worked well for many, during the industrial revolution, employees began to lose their leverage of leaving that kept employers in check.

During the industrial revolution, large factories rose up, employing workers by the thousands. Employers rarely had direct contact with their employees, and people akin to task masters oversaw the workers. Working conditions were harsh. If a worker showed up late to work, was in any way disorderly, or tried to unionize, he or she could be fired. Even children were hired and forced to work long hours in unhealthy environments.

And despite poor working conditions, long hours of arduous labor, and low wages, factory employees had nowhere else to go because most places of employment were the same. These difficulties were most often experienced by immigrants and the poor, and because they had no way to improve their situation, these workers had no choice but to work in these factories and other similar places.

Eventually, in the early twentieth century, the government passed a series of labor laws that helped rectify the poor working situation. These laws established minimum wages, work environment regulations, and union rights. And throughout the century, more laws were periodically passed that made illegal any discrimination (based on gender, religion, age, and so on) against employees.

Because of the sufferings of thousands in those prior years, employees today enjoy the benefits of being guaranteed certain rights. Unfortunately, some employers are still found guilty of disobeying these employee-protection laws.

Today, the most common breach of employee rights is discrimination. Some employers may even inadvertently discriminate against employees based on age, gender, race, religion, or disability. But inadvertent or not, discrimination in the workplace is illegal. One of the only exceptions is discriminating against disability. If a job cannot be performed with reasonable accommodation by a person with a disability, the employer retains the right to not hire that person. Of course what is considered “reasonable” is something of a gray area, but the exception is meant to ensure that employers aren’t forced to hire someone who can’t perform the job.

Another common type of discrimination is based on age. Many have the misconception that someone who is older may not be as good a worker as someone who is young. However, if an elderly person meets all of the requirements of job, he or she must be seriously considered on equal footing with other candidates.

In regards to the payroll, gender discrimination is quite common. In general, women are still paid less than men for performing the same jobs. Although this disparity in pay is becoming smaller and is not as bad as it was just a few decades ago, in general, women are still paid less. The problem in detecting this type of discrimination is that people are often prohibited from discussing income with their coworkers, and many people don’t know what is considered fair pay for their jobs.

Another all-to-common illegal occurrence in the workplace is sexual harassment, particularly toward women. Sexual harassment can range from derogatory or sexual comments to receiving promotions based on sexuality to unwanted forceful actions. And sexual harassment is illegal not only if it comes from an employer but from a coworker as well. Unfortunately, in many cases of sexual harassment, the victims are either too embarrassed or scared to come forward and take legal action against the guilty party.

And although discrimination and harassment are illegal, when people take legal action against their employers on the basis of discrimination, feelings of tension or anger may exist between the two parties. And although there may not be much a person can do to resolve the tense atmosphere, employees can rest assured that if an employer attempts to discharge our fire them because they filed a charge of discrimination, the employer will face additional legal charges.

Employers also cannot legally retaliate against those who take protected leave under the Family Medical Leave Act or who file a workers’ compensation claim. Such retaliation is illegal so that employees will not be threatened or discouraged from filing legal charges.

Sometimes employees find it difficult to prove that they are being discriminated against or they may not be entirely sure what legally qualifies as discrimination or unfair treatment. In these cases, an employment attorney can be helpful. Employment attorneys specialize in labor laws and are familiar with past employment law cases, which can help you better understand your rights and determine if you should take legal action against an employer. And whether you’re looking for a Houston employment attorney or one elsewhere, you should research the attorney’s qualifications and experience before hiring one to advise or represent you.

Labor and employment laws were created after years of worker oppression and in response to employees’ demands for fair and equal treatment. Because of these laws, employees are no longer required to work obscenely long hours for little pay, work in unsafe environments, or suffer from harassment and other abuses. Because of these laws, working conditions have drastically improved, and with the current legal system, employees have a means to constantly evaluate, analyze, and continue to improve working conditions in a way that ensures they can do their best work without fear of oppression or discrimination.

Economic City To Transform Medak District

Medak District is located in Andhra Pradesh, India. Sangareddy is the district headquarters of Medak. Minister for Major Industries J. Geeta Reddy recently claimed that the Medak district has witnessed multi-fold development. The Export Promotion Industrial Park in Medak District has an area of 300 acres, and the Garment Complex at Gundla Pochampally in Medak District has an area of 170 acres. The Nagarjuna Agricultural Reserach and Development Institute (NARDI) has a 107-acre research farm, situated at Wargal, Medak District, 50 km from Hyderabad on the Rajiv Gandhi Highway.

The proposal of Hyderabad Economic City (HEC) will transform Medak considerably. Ras Al Khaima Authority (RAKIA), and APIIC signed a memorandum of understanding in September last for the development of HEC with a proposed investment of Rs 20,000 crore. The Andhra Pradesh government recently allotted 471 acres of land at Sultanpur village of Medak district for the first phase of Hyderabad Economic city which is being jointly developed by APIIC and RAS-AL-KHAIMAH. RAK is the investment arm of the UAE government which had asked for a total of 2000 acres for the project. The balance land would be allotted in due course according to an APIIC official. It would be an integrated financial hub with infrastructure facilities for financial services operations for banking, insurance and asset management companies. The project would also have an integrated health city that would include facilities for clinical and non-clinical services, hospitals, and medical colleges, research services for clinical trials, drug delivery system, stem cell research and genetic research among other things, according to sources. This is the largest real estate and infrastructure project coming up in Andhra Pradesh and is expected to provide quality employment to thousands of people. RAKIA is a world renowned and much respected investment body that is cash rich. Executing a project of this magnitude is well within their capability. Residential areas adjacent to Sultanpur such as Ayilapur, Kistareddypet and patelgudem will be the most sought after destinations and are likely to appreciate in value considerably.

This project is a boon to Medak district which would assume great significance in terms of the infrastructure being provided and tremendous employment potential. Sultanpur is located abutting the outer ring road and is presently accessible from the Mumbai highway via the Beeramguda crossing which is two Km after BHEL. A three and half Km drive would bring you to Kistareddypet village. The limits of Sultanpur commence barely half a Km to the right of Kistareddypet which has already been witnessing real estate development in the form of gated communities, residential layouts and apartment complexes. Sultanpur is situated at a distance of 16 to 18 Km from important hubs such as hi-tech city area, Microsoft campus, financial district etc. The prestigious IIT Hyderabad campus is also coming up in Medak district around 20 Kms from Sultanpur.

To support the investments around Medak district, the government of Andhra Pradesh proactively took few measures on the Power Generation. Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corp (APGENCO) has implemented the 2x 7..5 MW Singur hydel project at the head of Singur dam across river Manjira in Medak district. The project, estimated to cost Rs 405.8 Million was financed by the governments of AP and Karnataka as well as funds from power finance Corp (Rs. 160 million). BHEL supplied the turbines and Generators. The first 7.5 MW unit was commissioned in December 1999 while the second unit was commissioned in January 2000.

For Latest Property News in Hyderabad
Visit: http://www.propertydirect.in/newsEvts.faces

Abbey Santander Illustrates Unfair Dismissal Remedy (reinstatement)

Reinstatement, being the re-employment of the employee back into the role he was unfairly dismissed from (as though the dismissal had never occurred), is one possible remedy in the UK for unfair dismissal. In the high-profile case Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins (2006), the Employment Tribunal found that Mr Chagger had been unfairly dismissed, and that both Santander Abbey National (the Spanish-owned UK bank due to be re-branded as Santander, and being part of the Banco Santander Group) and Mr Hopkins had discriminated against Mr Chagger on the grounds of race in respect of his dismissal. The Employment Tribunal took the rare step of ordering Abbey Santander to reinstate Mr Chagger in order to remedy its wrongdoing. Santander Abbey National, however, refused to comply with the Employment Tribunal’s reinstatement order. Following Abbey Santander’s refusal and failure to comply with the reinstatement order, the Employment Tribunal subsequently ordered Abbey Santander to pay Mr Chagger the record breaking 2.8 million compensation for his loss on the basis that he had not been reinstated. Santander Abbey National had terminated Balbinder Chagger’s employment in 2006, giving redundancy as the reason. He was employed as a Trading Risk Controller, earned about 100,000 per year, reported into Nigel Hopkins and was of Indian origin.

UK law views reinstatement of the unfairly dismissed employee as the primary remedy for unfair dismissal; reinstatement of the employee permits him to continue to enjoy the economic benefits of the role in the future and also restores the mental satisfaction that he enjoyed from his role. If reinstatement of the employee is not practicable, UK law then usually views reengagement as the next best remedy. Reengagement is re-employment of the employee into a different role to the one he was unfairly dismissed from (on terms and conditions as close as is reasonably practicable to those he was unfairly dismissed from).

After an Employment Tribunal makes a finding of unfair dismissal, it must ask the unfairly dismissed employee whether or not he wishes to be reinstated or reengaged. If the employee wishes to be reinstated or reengaged, then the Employment Tribunal has complete discretion as to whether or not to issue a reinstatement order or reengagement order. The Employment Tribunal will consider whether it is practicable for the unfairly dismissed employee to return to work for the employer and, where the unfairly dismissed employee was partly to blame for the dismissal, whether or not it would be just and equitable to issue such a reinstatement order or reengagement order.

Although they are the primary remedies, Employment Tribunals rarely ever order reinstatement or reengagement though. That’s because the reality of the process of litigation is that its vexatious nature often leaves the relationship between the employer and the unfairly dismissed employee beyond repair such that it is no longer possible for them to work together anymore; only in rare cases do Employment Tribunals decide that the relationship remains workable.

When an Employment Tribunal orders reinstatement or reengagement, then it is open for the employer to refuse to re-employ the unfairly dismissed employee. Unless the employer satisfies the Employment Tribunal that it was not practicable to comply with the reinstatement order or reengagement order, then the employer’s refusal to comply with the Tribunal’s wishes will give rise to increased compensation for the unfairly dismissed employee. If the Tribunal is dissatisfied with the employer’s reasons for refusing to comply with its wishes, then the employer will have failed to comply with what the law views as the best solution to rectify the wrong committed; then the Employment Tribunal will proceed to consider and award compensation as the next best remedy to address the employer’s wrongdoing.

Requesting reinstatement and/or reengagement may prove to be tactically useful for an unfairly dismissed employee because the employer’s failure to comply entitles him to be compensated in full for all his loss of earnings from the date of the unfair dismissal to the date of the reinstatement/reengagement order; the statutory limit (or cap) on the compensation amount does not apply. So, if the unfairly dismissed employee’s losses to the date of the hearing exceed the statutory limit, then reinstatement/reengagement should be seriously considered. Furthermore, employers generally dislike re-employing an unfairly dismissed employee so much that a credible application for re-employment could lead to higher offers of settlement from the employer. If the employer complies with the order of reinstatement/reengagement, then the employee will be expected to comply too.

The Chagger case did not end at the Employment Tribunal stage, however. The case was subsequently escalated to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), and recently had escalated to the second highest court in UK, the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal’s website showed the case was heard on 7 and 8 July 2009. The Court of Appeal’s records of the case were not available at the time of writing this article. However, the King’s Bench Walk set of barristers’ chambers reported (through their website) that the hearing was limited to the issue of compensation only (not race discrimination also). That suggests that the wrong of race discrimination committed by Santander Abbey National and Mr Hopkins seemed to have been finalised by the EAT, which upheld the original Employment Tribunal’s judgement that Mr Hopkins and Abbey Santander had discriminated against Mr Chagger on the grounds of race in his dismissal.

Protecting Businesses with Employment Attorneys

Employment law in the 21st century is so complex that every business needs to have a good working relationship with a local employment attorney. It is this kind of partnership that protects a business from potentially catastrophic lawsuits. Many employment laws are in place to give business owners and managers the specific guidance and legal framework they need to make important decisions regarding employees or general employment policies. Employment attorneys help employers manage risks and control costs so that they can focus their time and resources on their businesses.

The Need for Employment Lawyers

While many businesses continue to operate under a common misconception – that they are too small to need an employment lawyer – in today’s more litigious business climate this misconception is more problematic than ever. Any company today that has employees needs to have legal counsel in order to stay informed and aware of laws pertaining to this specialized area. Every employer needs to understand the impact of such things as family or pregnancy leave, sexual harassment, wrongful termination, or how to apply the law when it comes to such seemingly routine things as lunch times or break times. A good employment attorney can assist in writing up policies that are created by the human resource department. Attorneys whose focus is employment and labor law, can advise clients in matters of employment discrimination, harassment, wrongful discharge, severance issues, and employment law compliance.

Employment Law and Proactive Management

Although that kind of employment lawyer participation in a business is easily affordable, it can potentially save a company tremendous amounts of money. When an employment lawyer is there to consult with management, legal communication between management and employees is improved. That kind of work environment can in turn, improve retention rates and performance – and those factors contribute directly to a more robust bottom line. Human resource professionals also need input from employment lawyers to ensure that they are making decisions that are good for retaining and supporting employees, and these decisions are therefore good for the company as well. Otherwise companies open themselves up to potential legal problems related to everything from age or disability discrimination, or perceived wrongful termination, to disputes over overtime pay.

Selecting an Experienced Employment Attorney

When choosing an employment lawyer, it is important to first locate a law firm that has employment attorneys with verifiable credentials. When you meet with the prospective employment attorneys, ask them what kinds of cases they have handled, and what the outcomes were for the companies in each case. Ideally, the employment lawyer you choose will be experienced at providing legal advice at all stages of a problem – situational and policy advice, litigation avoidance, and skilled representation in court and before administrative agencies.

Choose an employment attorney who not only has stellar credentials but also has a strong commitment to continuing education. Those reliable employment attorneys who have solid past experience combined with a forward-looking passion for the law will be able to serve their clients well, both now and in the future.

How The West Bengal Government Increased Employment Opportunities

The new West Bengal government is barely a couple of months old and came into position after replacing the Communist Party of India government. We are not going to get into a comparison between the communist government and the current government. We’ll to take a look at how the present West Bengal government increased employment opportunities in the state.

There is a lot of land in West Bengal that has been lying unused for quite some time. These vast stretches of land are mostly in the rural areas and are not fertile enough for agriculture. These land stretches are under private ownership and in most cases these are owned by farmers.

When the present government took charge, it conducted a statewide survey to find out the needs of the farmers who have always complained that the government isn’t interested in the welfare and development of their community. After conducting the surveys, the Congress government found out a couple of shocking facts. Quite contrary to popular belief, the farmers were having a hard time to make ends meet because most of the land that they owned wasn’t suitable for farming purposes. To make matters worse, the prices of fertilizers were increasing day by day, making it difficult for the farmers to continue with their profession.

A lot of farmers actually wanted the government to create employment opportunities for some of their family members so they could sustain their families better. This feedback actually helped the state government to form a strategy that would be beneficial for the entire state.

The government went on to strike a deal with foreign car manufacturing companies. These companies usually require vast stretches of land for setting up their factories; the government offered lands to these companies for rock-bottom prices, in return for which they were supposed to provide employment to at least two family members from every farmer family that was willing to sell the land they owned. This created a win-win situation for both parties. The company not only got the land but also the required manpower for its factories and the farmers got some money against their land along with two people from each family employed with the company.

It goes without mention that these factories required a lot of people for different posts and the number of people from the farmers’ families was just not enough to fill up all vacancies – this created employment opportunities for other people also. Today, West Bengal has a very high employment rate and the whole credit goes to the new Congress government.

The recent example of this project is the setting up of a Volkswagen factory in the Singur village in West Bengal. The construction work is still in progress, but the company has already given job offer letters to the family members of the farmers who sold their land to the government.

The government has also started a mass land acquisition project to make sure that all investors interested in setting up business units in the state can be accommodated. The companies who’ve already responded to the government’s invitation include Phillips, Siemens, Jaguar and DLF. Very soon West Bengal would turn into the hotspot of both private and government jobs and is even expected to give Delhi a tough competition in this regard.