Need an argumentative essay on Employment law. Needs to be 4 pages. Please no plagiarism.Download file to see previous pages... In the case of MyAnna, Frindus Foods limited gave her a written particul

Need an argumentative essay on Employment law. Needs to be 4 pages. Please no plagiarism.

In the case of MyAnna, Frindus Foods limited gave her a written particular, but which failed to highlight her station of work. However, they gave her an appointment letter that stated her place of work is Telford. This was a strong indication on where her work place was, and the authorities at Telford Company had to respect this statement. Section 1 (2) of the employment rights act of 1996 denotes that an employer can give to employer pieces of a contract agreement, as long as it is done within two months. Part 1 section 4 (h) of the employment contracts act of 1996 denotes that a statement of a contract must identify the location, in which the employer is to work. or places the company authorizes him or her to work, and the address of the employer (Goldsmith, 2012). According to the appointment letter that MyAnna had, she was supposed to work at the company’s headquarters in Telford. This satisfies the requirements of a statement of employment set up by Section 4 (h), part 1 of the 1996 employment act. The contract between Frindus limited, and MyAnna is an ordinary contract, and in case Frindus wants to change the terms of the contract, the management has to consult MyAnna. In the case involving Ferodo limited against Rigby (1987), the company decided to reduce the wage rate of Rigby without his consultation. This was to affect all the employees of the organization, and it was meant to save the company from insolvency. Rigby continued to work, for almost a year before taking the matter to the court. The courts of appeal agreed with Rigby assertions that there was a breach of contract because of the unilateral decision of the company. On appeal, the House of Lords maintained the rulings from the lower courts, granting Mr. Rigby compensation for the shortfall of his wages (Velluti, 2011). The House of Lords held that by continuing to work, it did not necessarily mean that Rigby had an implied consent to the changes in the contract (Countouris, 2007). In the case law involving Autoclenz Company against Belcherz, the Supreme Court of England denoted that an employer has a right to negotiate the provisions of his or her contract. In the case, Mr. Belcher worked for Auto Clenz limited as a valeter. Autoclenz got into a contract with British Car Auctions to provide valeting services, making Belcher and his coworkers have nothing to do. They claimed pay for the hours of work they were idle, and the company refused stating that they were self-employed, as per their contract. The main issue under concern in this case is whether Belcher and his co-workers were employees, or self-employed personnel. The Supreme Court ruled that the valeters were workers within the organization, and therefore had a contract of employment. On this basis, because there was inequality in the level in which the employees would bargain with the company (Mathijsen, 1995), the company had to consult with the workers on any issue that affects them. However in the 2010 case that involved Asda Stores against Bateman, the British Employment Tribunal denoted that an employer had the right to vary the provisions of an employee’s contract, without consulting them, if they had a variation in their employment contract with a clause that gave an employer such kind of powers. In this case, Asda Company sought to change its pay structure by reconciling the salaries of the older staff, with new employees.