As to her argument that the entry qualifications are a "good first degree," it might be pointed out that what is constituted as a good first degree in these two departments differs. The question is whether her degree is more closely related to engineering or it, or neither. These differences would be considered a "material factor." A good first degree is not the only material factor that will determine the success of the case. Both jobs have other factors involved as well. For instance, skills, training, and valid experience also count for these positions. There is enough material factors to say that Pamela does nor have a case in the job evaluation claim. The mere fact that a majority of the engineering technicians are men and the it technicians are women is not a valid case, because both departments have both sexes. The argument could be made that insufficient candidates were found. Sex was not a factor in the hiring process. The question remains of if Pamela is really qualified to be an engineer, or whether she is best suited for the it department.
Case 2: Tariq
In this case, the key is to have good HR disciplinary procedures in place that cover issues such as drinking on the job and absences. Drinking at the pub during lunchtime is a time-honored British tradition. Drinking at the pub and then going back to lunch might have been acceptable long ago, but now it is completely unacceptable. The key reason is impairment. First, there is the safety issue of driving while drinking, which British law treats harshly. Many companies have policies that workers cannot drink for 12 hours before the start of their work shift (Einterman, 2003).
If the job involves tasks where the worker could endanger their own safety or the safety of others, drinking on the job is absolutely unacceptable. However, even if the job would not create a safety issue, it still jeopardizes the reputation of the company. Jeremy made mistakes that could cost the company jobs and their reputation. This alone is unacceptable, but Jeremy actually broke British drinking and driving laws while on company time. Substance abuse is one of the employee actions in which the company is allowed to immediately dismiss an employee without following the normal disciplinary procedures (Directgov, 2011). Therefore, Jeremy will be fired upon return. Both Jeremy and Tariq would face disciplinary action (Meadowcroft, 2010). In order to fire Tariq, he must go through all stages of the disciplinary tribunal (Matheson).
Jeremy followed absences policies, so he cannot be dismissed on those grounds (Halson Solicitors, 2011), but he can be fired for drinking on the job. Even if the employee is on their own unpaid time at work, they still have alcohol in their system when they drive to work and for the rest of the day. It is not likely that a tribunal would see this as a reasonable defense on the part of the employee, due to the length of time alcohol stays in the system.
Tariq was an accomplice by allowing it to go on and covering for him. Regardless of how good of an employee Jeremy was in the beginning, his drinking behavior as it related to work is intolerable. Jeremy's drinking caused mistakes at work. If he had an accident, there might be a question of whether the company was liable, because Tariq knew about it and did nothing. The question is whether Tariq should be subject to disciplinary action or dismissal. The actions by Jeremy are serious and they had gone on for quite some time. Tariq not only knew about them and did nothing, he actually covered for Jeremy and enabled the actions. Had it not been for this point, Tariq's actions might have called for disciplinary action according to company policy. Tariq did not actually commit the crime of drinking on the job, so a tribunal would not consider him to have committed one of the conditions that can call for dismissal. Therefore, Tariq would receive punishment according to the company disciplinary policy. It is likely that Jeremy's firing will have an effect on Tariq that will make him think about such actions in the future.
Jane should not be asked to stay and do the reports. She was not the one who violated the rules and has an important family matter to attend to. It would cause her great emotional stress to miss saying goodbye to her family member. The company realizes the value of dedicated, happy employees. If Jane is punished, she might become unhappy and leave the company. Jane needs to know that she is a valuable employee. She should not face any consequences for a situation that she did not create.
Tariq should be responsible for the reports, as he was responsible for creating the situation. It is likely that Tariq can figure out how to do the reports, especially if Jane gives him a crash course before he leaves. It is bad policy to only rely on a few people to take care of vital company functions. Jane could train Tariq on how the do the reports.
Case 3 -- air rage
One might feel like dismissing the employee in this case, but under UK law, the employer cannot rightfully do so unless that employee actually goes to prison (Directgov, 2011). In terms of discipline, the company would have to follow their written disciplinary procedure in order to gain the grounds for firing at this point. In Pay v. Lancashire Probation Service (2004), it was determined that what happens in an employee's private life outside of work cannot have an effect on their work. They cannot be terminated unless their actions results in actions that can result in dismissal that are company related.
The employee has been a good employee up to this point. The employer does have the right to refuse to give a statement in this case, but that will probably mean losing a good employee when they go to prison. The human resources department needs to stop and evaluate the overall effects of their actions in this case. It the employee has been good up until this point, they might want to reconsider taking actions that will result in that employee being fired and going to prison.
Childs, M. (2004). 'Putting a value on evaluation'. Personnel Today. 19 December 1003. [online] Available: http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2004/10/19/26125/putting-a-value-on-evaluation.html [accessed 19 January 2011].
Directgov. (2011). Fair Reasons for Dismissal. [online] Available: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/RedundancyAndLeavingYourJob/Dismissal/DG_175834 [accessed 19 January 2011].
InBrief, (2011). The Equal Pay Act 1970. [online] Available: http://www.inbrief.co.uk/employees/equal-pay.htm [accessed 19 January 2011].
Matheson., M. Employment Law. [onine]. Available: http://www.mairmatheson.co.uk/employment/employment_law.shtml [accessed 19 January 2011].
Meadowcroft, K. (2010). 'Weekly Dilemma: Alcohol at Work'. Personnel Today. 29 November 2010. [online]. Available: http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2010/11/19/56968/weekly-dilemma-alcohol-at-work.html [accessed 19 January 2011].
Pay v Lancashire Probation Service (2004) ICR 187; Pay v UK  IRLR 139
Roydens, (2011). Contracts of Employment. [online] Available: http://www.roydens.co.uk/content01.htm [accessed 19 January 2011].
Winterman, D. (2003). 'Caught Drinking on the job'. 20 February 2003. BBC News. [online]
Available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2783119.stm [accessed 19 January 2011].