Workplace Law

There are two issues here: the first one is looking on whether June is in breach on contractual terms, the second one is looking on whether June could claim any legislative protections in relation to Malcolm’s conduct. Whether June is in breach on contractual terms, is looked at whether she is bound by the contractual terms that she has to follow. She must be in employment course with Westwood for the contractual terms to be bound. Other than that, for the contractual terms to be take effect on June, the contractual terms are only take effect to bound to June after its implementation. The issue here also included whether June’s several comments on Twitter about the mismanagement of libraries and the comment of suggesting the Library was antiqued and wasting money of buying new books, are breaching the terms of policy of Westwood. It is also an investigation on whether her action is spreading confidential information of Westwood to the public to be misconduct to the employment.

Company policies are incorporated as terms into contracts of employment as reciprocal commitments can be created by policies. This can be proved in the case of Riverwood v McCormick (2000) and Goldman Sacks v Nikolich (2007). However, in the case of Akmeemana v Murray (2010), it enhances that policies of company do not bind on the employees. When the implied terms of employment for other companies (objective test), and the company’s policies mentioned the terms, it is binding to its employees.

In the case of BP Refinery v Hastings (1977), it enhance the terms implied by facts, which the just and equitable tell all of us so obvious. Further explanation for this sentence is that the employee has his duty of care to his employer or the company he worked for. It is so obvious it goes without saying that the employee should not commented and critics her employer in public that will affect the reputation of the employer. When the employee has breach the duty of care to his employees he is not...