It is apparent that Quickisave has some issues with the way it treats its workers, an evident show that it acts contrary to existing regulations, and hardly cares for the possible consequences of its actions. One particular threatening issue is how the firm reacts to Ada’s liking of a post terming the royal family as being racists. Instead of taking the matter that has garnered much interest online lightly, the company, and particularly Ada’s manager threatens to terminate Ada if she fails to unlike the post. Bert, the manager, becomes evidently upset with Ada when she fails to unlike the post and shouts while asking her to leave the country if she is not comfortable. Whereas Ada is British, the sentiments hurt Corey who overhears the comments, and feel that the statement may not be friendly to those from other nations such as him who is from Denmark. Corey becomes increasingly uncomfortable and does not seem to know what the future holds for him. On the other hand, Daphane who has served at Quickisave for nearly half a decade feels sidelined for not securing a promotion that instead goes to Eric who despite lacking required knowledge goes ahead to get promoted primarily because he has some relations with the director. Based on the analysis of the situation at Quickisave, the affected workers can take measures, based on provided laws, to mitigate their situation. Fortunately, the UK employment law has directives on how to handle the issues troubling the identified workers, and applying them would safeguard them against what they feel is unfair treatment from their leaders.
In the case of Ada, the most applicable action as provided for in law is to adhere to the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 that applies to every citizen of the UK. The law provides that every person has the right to freedom of expression. Nonetheless, the regulation comes with some restrictions. For instance, it does not tolerate hate speech. Bert’s ideology as a staunch monarchist should not override the legal provisions because this is contrary to the expectation of the employee who seems to know her rights. The harsh treatment of Ada by Bert is certainly contrary to existing laws on free speech considering that the organization does not have an internal policy barring workers from expressing their views and opinions on online platforms. In addition to what appears to be a violation of the worker’s freedom of expression, an attempt to fairly remove Ada from work is evident in the case. Bert becomes increasingly harsh and tells her that she may leave for her country if she feels the place is not right. The law is clear that the dismissal could be unfair if the employer does not give a convincing reason for their action (Gov.UK). Therefore, the most suitable action for Ada would be to share her sentiments with the leader in a calm and understandable manner considering that the leader is already angered and any further provocation could lead to dismissal. Alternatively, the employee can raise the issue with senior management and try to find an amicable solution that would ensure that the worker continues with her work without any fears.
Corey on the other hand, may have to safeguard his woes by seeking the guidance of both the Equality Act 2010 and the Race Relations Act 1976. Race is one of the primary features safeguarded by the Equality Act 2010. This implies that workers are safeguarded from harassment and discrimination in the workstation on the basis of their national background, ethnicity, national, or color (Fell & Dyban 2016, p. 189). The legislation includes features that prohibit discrimination against adults serving in the various sectors. Thus, Corey can exude confidence while offering their duties knowing that the Equality Act 2010 safeguards them against potential violations such as the one witnessed at Quickisave. Corey can also seek protection from the Race Relations Act 1976, which has since undergone various amendments. The directive informs that workers are free from any form of discrimination based on their nationality, colour, ethnicity, and race (Equality and Human Rights Commission 2018). However, because the attack is not directed against Corey, it is advisable that he practices calmness and see how the events turn out. However, the worker has the right to raise his concerns if he feels that the threat intensifies and that the events may affect his performance. However, choosing to keep quite could harm his productivity and may deter him from focusing on his tasks.
Daphane who misses on the opportunity to ascend to a higher position due to discrimination may also address the matter by finding out what relevant laws say, and try to bring them to the firm’s attention. In this case, Daphane can refer to the Equality Act 2010 that forbid employers from handling some employees unequally by making it a lawful offence via discrimination. The legislation directs that all workers must be handled similarly or equally and not disadvantaged by bias or prejudices (Fell & Dyban 2016, p. 190). Hence, equality as provided for in the Equality Act 2010 implies same job opportunities and sameness for workers and job applicants. The legislation is clear that no one should be denied opportunities because of the things they cannot alter such as the way they think, the way they were born, what they believe, their relations with particular people, or disability status (Fell & Dyban 2016, p. 190). The provision implies that the best person for a promotion or work is the one who gets the position depending on their knowledge, experiences, and qualifications. However, the provision does not have to do with treating everyone the same considering that differently-competent individuals have dissimilar desires (Hand 2015). It is primarily about offering equal reach to the opportunities. The practice may entail taking actions or making changes to accommodate persons with dissimilar requirements. The law describes these acts as reasonable adjustments, to make sure there is an equal avenue for everyone. Consequently, team managers should take time to be familiar with the regulation to avoid scenarios such as those encountered in Quickisave.
In this case, Daphane can seek protection from the legislation in various ways. The most valuable form would be to discuss the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 with the organizational managers while expressing his concerns regarding the turn of events. However, the worker must be careful in the manner he addresses the issues to avoid causing more disunity and disgruntlement. Alternatively, the employee may contact those charged with implementing the regulation and air his grievances. Nonetheless, this may not be a good approach since this may cause more division among the concerned parties. Daphane, therefore, should practice calmness as he tries to address the matter and keep working hard while hoping to take an opportunity that emerges next time.
Lessons for the Organization
Quickisave learns the importance of conducting its operations based on existing employment laws that define how employers should relate with their employees. Adhering to existing frameworks helps to avoid the legal repercussions that are likely to occur as a result of non-compliance. A possible impact is that the firm may have to waste a lot of time battling court cases, something that could impact negatively on organizational performance (Zhang 2020, p. 338). Other than taking much time trying to settle the issues, the firm may have to part with considerable amount of money as fine or settlement for the litigations. One of the top priorities in a business is to generate profits and when the firm enters into unplanned expenditure it becomes very difficult to fulfil certain aspirations (Alarcon & Sanchez 2013, p. 21). Another possible impact of having to deal with legislations is increased turnover rates because some staff members may not want to be associated with a company that constantly battles court cases. They may feel that such disruptions deter them from focusing on their work, and also deny them the chance to advance their careers. Another possible adverse effect is that workers may lose interest in their work when they feel less appreciated as it occurs in Daphane’s case. According to Mallik et al. (2019, p. 3290) Shaban et al. (2017, p. 2) workers with low morale will show signs that encompass; intensified absenteeism, conflicts with colleagues, reduced productivity, untidy work environments, and continuously complaining about apparently less important issues. In the long run, the organization will fail to meet its goals and objectives, and may not be as competitive as it would desire. Hence, organizational leaders should be careful in the way they relate with staff members to avoid some of the undesirable issues as witnessed in Quickisave.
The analysis emphasizes the need for employers to align their operations in accordance with existing laws to avoid the unpleasant effects that come with noncompliance. Examining the situation at Quickisave, it is apparent that the manager act contrary to laws and regulations that define how employers relate with their workers. The more apparent violations are the mistreatment and what appears to be discrimination against people from particular regions. In addition, the unfair promotions at the firm increases the likelihood for witnessing undesirable effects that could affect how the group performs its activities. Thus, the most suitable approach to avoid some of the issues that evidently disrupt operations at the company is to understand what the law says and work towards implementing them. The Equality Act 2010 emerges to be an influential regulation that counters some of the practices that appear to be impacting on the way the company functions. However, the group may not witness the targeted objectives and may not resolve the problems as effectively as possible if team leaders do not take the initiative to understand what the law says and what they can do to ensure workers express themselves as provided for in law and have equal opportunity for growth and development.
Alarcon, S, & Sanchez, M 2013, ‘Business strategies, profitability and efficiency of production’, Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 19-31.
Equality and Human Rights Commission 2018, The Human Rights Act. Available at: < https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights/human-rights-act#:~:text=The%20Human%20Rights%20Act%201998%20sets%20out%20the%20fundamental%20rights,the%20UK%20in%20October%202000.> [June 9, 2022]
Gov.UK 2022, Dismissal: Your rights. Available at: < https://www.gov.uk/dismissal/unfair-and-constructive-dismissal#:~:text=Unfair%20dismissal,dismissal%20procedure%20in%20Northern%20Ireland > [June 9, 2022]
Fell, E, & Dyban, M 2016, ‘Against discrimination: Equality Act 2010 UK’, The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioral Sciences, vol. 2, pp. 188-194.
Hand, J 2015, ‘Outside the Equality Act’, International Journal of Discrimination and the Law, vol. 15, no. 4, doi:10.1177/1358229115593829
Mallik, A, Mallik, L, & Keerthi, D 2019, ‘Impact of Employee Morale on Organizational Success’, International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 3289-3293.
Shaban, O, Al-Zubi, Z, Ali, N, & Alqotaish, A 2017, ‘The effect of low morale and motivation on employees’ productivity & competitiveness in Jordanian industrial companies’, International Business Research, vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 1-7.
Zhang, C 2020, ‘Study on the influence of litigation risk on Chinese listed companies’, Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, vol. 150, 336-340.