Employee Complaint Handling Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2750 words

Employee Complaint Handling - Coursework Example What is a grievance (Dentron and Boyd 2005, p. 61) A grievance can be defined as any complaint that is raised by an individual worker of a group of workers in an organization. A grievance is usually raised in allegation of violation of the terms of agreement in the workplace. Therefore it can be said to a complaint that is raised and which is aimed at expressing the dissatisfaction of the employees by what is happening in the organization. A grievance however differs from a complaint in that while a complaint can be verbally expressed, a grievance is usually stated in writing. A grievance can be caused by many things. It has been shown that some of the most controversial issues which usually ends up in a grievance include the discharge of employees from their workplace, lack of a process of collective bargaining for the employees which can be used to express their dissatisfaction, unfair labor practices, and others which are likely to happening in the work places. (Rahul 2005, p. 31) Therefore we can expound on this point by looking closely at the process which is usually used to handle these complaints. For the effective functioning of an organization, there is usually a need to look at the welfare of the employee. Any management will recognize that the employees are the most important asset that an organization holds and therefore the most important thing in the management of the resources of an organization will be first to look at the welfare of the workforces. It has been shown that most of the grievances which hare not well looked at often precipitate to a form of dissident by the workforce which in most case comes as strike. A strike in an organization will not only have economic effect on the organization but it will also have effects on the image of the management of the organization. Therefore many organizations have come up with an effective procedure that can be used to handle complaints of het employees. In order to ensure that there is less participant of the workforce in mass movement of labor unions, many organization came up with human resource departments which are well positioned to handle the complains of the employees. Therefore it is the duty of the human resource department to come up with a well structured way that can be used to look at the welfare of the workforce. The human resource department is the one which is entrusted with the duty of handling all the complaints regarding the employees. Human resource department must come up with a grievance handling procedure. (Finegan 2004, p. 71) A grievance handling produced clearly defines a process which is used by the organization to look at the complaints that has been given by the employees. It presents a process of initial resolving of the complaints through arbitration. It is a process that is used to indentify and resolve the companies in a timely manner in order to promoted the prevail a constructive discussion between the management and the representatives of the employees. therefore the aim of the grievance procedure is to ensure that there is a proper mechanism in place that is used by the management to look at the issues that pertains to employees in order to ensure that there is constructive resolving of the complains at they arises. (Dana 2001, p. 231) Contemporary view of

Law of Obligations(Tort) LLB Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Law of Obligations(Tort) LLB - Essay Example Frances (and his parents), depending upon the effect of the incident on the child, may also have a claim for psychological damage against the nursery brought about by the latter's negligence. In the recent case of Jones v BBC, 2007 WL 2187023 (QBD), where Jones, a freelance sound recordist for defendant BBC claimed that he suffered personal injury when a windmill rotor fell onto his back causing severe spinal injury rendering him paraplegic. In ruling for the claimant, the court stated that since BBC's safety crew had identified a risk of the falling mast, a discussion before filming should have been made to warn the crew not to go beneath it. But the safety crew did not give the warning. Such failure of BBC, through the safety crew, is considered negligent which caused Jones' accident. Thus, the BBC was liable for Jones' injuries. Also, the cameraman and Jones worked as a team because their equipment was linked. Jones with his equipment was following the cameraman who had decided to pass beneath the mast thereby leading Jones into the hazardous area. The cameraman was then in breached of his duty of care and the BBC was vicariously liable for that negligence. In Wilsons & Clyde Coal Company, Limited v English, [1938] A.C. 57, the House of Lords stated as follows: " primarily the master has a duty to take due care to provide and maintain a reasonably safe system of working in the mine, and a master, who has delegated the duty of taking due care in the provision of a reasonably safe system of working to a competent servant, is responsible for a defect in the system of which he had no knowledge" By the Jones and Wilsons cases, it is clear that the employer is under a duty of care to provide the employee with competent fellow employees including a qualified medical personnel, properly maintained site and facilities, and to provide a safe place and system of work. The question of whether the employer breached that duty of care depends on the standard of care owed by the employer to its employee and whether it has taken reasonable steps considering the circumstances. (Latimer v A.E.C. Ltd.[1953]) In Jones, the breach of the employer's duty consists in B BC's failure (through its safety crew) to discuss with the cameraman and Jones the risk of the falling mast and to warn the cameraman and Jones in unequivocal terms that they must not go beneath it. In Wilsons, the breach by the employer consists of its failure to provide competent fellow employees, properly maintained mine and equipment, and to provide a safe place and system of work. In the case of Ina here, the failure of the employer to provide competent fellow employees and to properly provide and maintain a safe place and system of work which caused the employee's disability to work for three (3) months constitute a breach of the standard of care required of the employer. Jack's negligence in leaving the drill on the floor in a place where thirty (30) toddlers freely roam about constitutes a negligent act for which the employer must be held vicariously responsible. The nursery cannot invoke the defence that Jack is merely a hired self-employed carpenter because as the court st ated in the Jones case the BBC had clearly assumed a responsibility for the health and safety of freelancers when they were working on BBC productions that was equivalent to that of an employer to a direct employee. Jack should have been more careful with his tools because it can reasonably be expected