Speaking. Agreeing and disagreeing

Ex. 4.Using the phrases for agreeing and disagreeing presented above, discuss these statements with a partner.

1. Sex discrimination cases will decline as women are now enjoying more equality in the workplace.

2. Drug testing in the workplace is an infringement of an individual's right to privacy, a right which the courts should continue to protect.

3. It is an employer's responsibility to help its employees overcome problems with addiction or substance abuse.

4. Women should be able to resume their careers where they left off after taking time off to bring up a family.

Ex. 5.The article is divided into three parts. Read the three headings. Which of the three sections do you think primarily contains opinions and attitudes?

Ex. 6.Look at the first section of the text. Underline the explanation of how employment tribunals work, as well as the four adjectives describing the new arbitration scheme.

Ex. 7.Read the whole text. Whose opinions of the arbitration procedure are reported? Why does the writer describe the introduction of the new scheme as ironic?

Determining unfair dismissal cases by arbitration

Since 21 May 2001, a voluntary arbitration procedure in unfair dismissal cases has been available to employers and employees in England and Wales as an alternative to the traditional way of resolving such cases via employment tribunals.

Compared with a public hearing in front of a three-member employment tribunal, with a legally qualified chairperson, involving the cross-examination of witnesses and, in the vast majority of cases, the involvement of legal representatives, the new arbitration scheme, administered by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS), is intended to be 'speedy, informal, confidential [and] non-legalistic'.

Key features of the scheme

There are significant differences between the new arbitration scheme and the conventional employment-tribunal process. The key features of the ACAS arbitration scheme are as follows:

The scheme is entirely voluntary and is available only in respect of unfair dismissal claims. It can be used only where both parties agree to it and waive certain rights they would have at an employment tribunal.

Hearings will be held in private in such places as an ACAS office or a hotel and will normally be completed within half a day. Written statements of their case may be submitted by the parties in advance.

The case will be heard by an experienced arbitrator, 'chosen by ACAS, not the parties themselves. Legal representatives may be used by the parties.

There is no set format for the hearing. Arbitrators have a general duty to act fairly and impartially between the parties, giving each party a reasonable opportunity to plead his or her case and respond to that of the other party. The process is intended to be 'inquisitorial' or 'investigative', rather than adversarial as in tribunal hearings - no cross-examination will take place.

Each party covers their own costs in attending the hearing. However, if a dismissal is found to be unfair, the arbitrator can include in the calculation of any compensation a sum to cover the costs incurred by the employee in attending the hearing.

Arbitrators are required to apply EC law and the Human Rights Acts 1998 (on which a legal adviser may be appointed to provide guidance), but otherwise, instead of applying strict legal tests and case law, the arbitrator's decision will have regard to 'general principles of fairness and good conduct in employment relations'.

As with unfair dismissal cases determined by an employment tribunal, reinstatement, re­engagement and compensation are the available remedies if the dismissal is not upheld. Unlike tribunal cases, however, the award is confidential to ACAS and the parties, and the arbitrator's decision will be final and binding.

There is only very limited scope for appealing or challenging the arbitrator's award.

Commentary.

It remains to be seen what impact the new arrangements will have. Lawyers and other commentators are uncertain about the merits and likely attractiveness of the new scheme. Some have expressed concern that, because the criteria for arbitrators' decisions ('general principles of fairness and good conduct in employment relations') differ from the statutory tests applied by the tribunals, a 'two-tier' system of justice may develop. It has also been suggested that the arbitration scheme offers employers and employees less certainty of outcome, and that the confidentiality of awards may mask variable standards within the arbitration scheme.

Some lawyers think that the confidentiality of proceedings under the arbitration scheme may be a significant attraction to employers who want to avoid the damaging publicity sometimes associated with tribunal cases. Conversely, however, some lawyers predict that the fact that the process is private may make arbitration less attractive to dismissed employees. According to this view, arbitration lacks the 'embarrassment value' of public tribunal hearings, which may lead to favourable out-of-court settlements for dismissed employees. The limited grounds for appealing against an arbitrator's decision are considered a disadvantage for employers.

The irony of the new arbitration scheme is that employment tribunals were themselves intended as an 'easily accessible, informal speedy and inexpensive' alternative to the ordinary courts for dealing with individual employment disputes when the UK's unfair dismissals legislation was first introduced 30 years ago.

Ex. 8.Read the article again and decide whether these statements are true or false.

1. Arbitration is intended to be faster and less formal than the traditional process of resolving employment disputes.

2. In the arbitration scheme, parties will not be questioned by the other party's representative.

3. In reaching a decision, an arbitrator is obliged to apply case law and legal tests.

4. Some lawyers fear that arbitration will lead to double standards in the resolution of employment disputes.

5. The confidentiality of arbitration appeals to those who have been dismissed from work, as it causes less embarrassment.

6. Employers regard the fact that it is difficult to appeal a decision made by an arbitrator to be a considerable advantage of the arbitration system.

Ex. 9.Match these adjectives from the text (1-5) with their synonyms (a-e).

Ex. 10.Match these verbs (1-6) with their definitions (a-f). The verbs are in italics in the article.

Ex. 11.Match the verbs (1-6) with the nouns in the box that they collocate with in the article. Some of the nouns go with more than one verb.

1 to hear 2 to waive 3 to plead

4 to apply 5 to appeal 6 to challenge

Can you add any more?

Ex. 12.How does the arbitration procedure described in the text compare with the arbitration system used for handling employment disputes in your jurisdiction?

Ex. 13.The sentences in the following text have been jumbled. Arrange them in an appropriate order.

1.Peter worked as a night watchman in a small factory.

2.Peter told him that he had a nightmare.

3.He also sacked him.

4.In his nightmare he had seen the next day’s plane to New-York crashing.

5.He told Peter he would be flying to New-York next day.

6.Peter’s boss cancelled his ticket and didn’t fly to New-York.

7.The next day the plane crashed.

8.That morning the boss came in with a suitcase.

9.Peter immediately told him not to.

10.The boss thanked Peter and gave him a big present.

Answer the following questions to the previous text.

1.Why did the boss sack Peter?

2.Was Peter fired unfairly?

3.Did Peter have a strong grounds for a suit case?

Ex. 14.Look at the headings from two newspaper articles. Then organize the sections below to re-construct the two articles about sackings which lead to legal problems.

AA French man who was sacked for wearing Bermuda shorts at work has lost a case for unfair dismissal. Cedric Monribot was

BA man who claimed he was sacked for working too hard has won his job back. The Australian Industrial Relations Commission ruled Geoffry Scott’s dismissal was harsh

Ctribunal found there were no grounds to his case because he had not suffered any legitimate form of discrimination. He told

Dtreated. Mr. Scott said he was relieved by the outcome of the case and that he expected to return to work in the next fortnight. Centrelink national manager Hank Jongen said that his company

Ea local radio station that he would appeal against the ruling announced by Tribunal President Catherine Leverbe.

Ftechnician argued that under French law his sacking was ‘abusive and challenging to individual liberty’. However, an employment

Gand unreasonable. Union leaders had claimed he was sacked from the Centrelink agency for helping out colleagues and clients when the office was busy. The 34-year-old was sacked

Hfrom the company’s Wollongong office in December for continually disobeying instructions not to help his fellow workers. The commission ruled that he was unfairly

Isacked from a company called Sagem for refusing to wear trousers at work despite several warnings. The 29-year-old

Jwas disappointed the court had failed to support their decision to dismiss a worker for disobeying instructions.

Work with a partner and answer the following questions.

1Why did Cedric Monribot say his sacking was unfair?

2Did the employment tribunal agree?

3What argument did Centrelink use for sacking Geoffrey Scott?

4Did the Industrial Relations Commission agree?

Discuss the questions in pairs and present your opinion to the whole group.

1Do you know of any similar cases?

2What happens when somebody thinks they have been unfairly dismissed in Ukraine?

Ex. 15.Read the following text. Fill in the blanks with the appropriate words from the box.

Date: 2016-01-14; view: 1463