The Board of Trustees Role according to UK Law Slander and Defamation

Introduction
There are many cases involving junior employees faking accusations against the senior employees around the world. The intention by the junior employees to do this is often dependent on the individual employees and their work environments. However, the impact of their slander is adverse as it can lead to the dismissal of the top leaders (Kenyon, 2013). When CEOs are fired because of false accusations by the junior officers, the legal directors of the company are deemed to have failed in protecting the CEOs against false accusations. They are the ones mandated to ensure that everything within organizations run well and no individual suffers any unjust attack. As a result, it is necessary for the board of trustees to be vigilant to note and stop any attempt by employees to hurt the top management on baseless accusations. The United Kingdom law forbids against any unjust accusations on individuals for selfish gain (Kenyon, 2016). The law is strict on punishing slanderous individuals, and the board of trustees in any organization can charge and punish slanderous employees. The following study shows some strategies that boards of trustees can use when protecting their top managers from unfair attacks from the junior employees.
The Board of Trustees and Protection of Top Managers
The Boards of Trustees are expected to understand well the laws governing the conduct of employees. They should be able to comprehend and interpret the law well for them to assure all employees optimal protection against any unfair attacks by colleagues (Tilley, 2011). For example, the United Kingdom Law strictly forbids individuals from maliciously creating accusations against others to achieve personal targets. The law provides that any such individual should be held criminal and thus be punished accordingly (Kenyon, 2016). They should be in a position to understand the law and the relevant steps to take to ensure justice is served to malicious employees.
The board of trustees needs to help the employees understand the law and the possible repercussions they are likely to face when they accuse others wrongly. Through this, the board of trustees should educate employees on the requirements of the law regarding their conduct. They should not only seek persecution to errand employees without letting them know when and why they can be legally charged. In fact, the board of trustee’s key mandate is to avoid possible slander among employees (Ansley, 2017). The employee’s awareness of the law and the legal punishments they can face when they accuse others falsely can reduce their chances of using false information against others. The trend will also end up sanitizing the conduct of employees when within or without organizations. Therefore, the board can help in molding employees’ behavior and ensure that they are cognizant and respectful of the law.
The board of trustees should focus more on promoting effective communication within and without organizations. They should ensure that there is a proper communication channel that ensures that any conflict between employees is effectively revealed, discussed and resolved (Krzanich, 2011). The employees should be aware of their responsibility to air their concerns and avoid making wrong accusations against individuals because they will be caught and punished. The problem with many organizations is that they do not have relevant communication channels that can allow the board of trustees to know who accused another unfairly (Bennis, Goleman, & O'Toole, 2010). The board finds it easy to retrieve and assess the information or the reasons that led to an employee making a false accusation against organization’s top managers. The assessment of the manner or the circumstances that led to an employee making accusations against a top manager is only possible when an effective communication channel exists.
The board of trustees should be able to carry out investigations on when, by who, and why false information was used against their top managers. As a result, it will be possible to serve justice to both the employee and the senior manager. There are cases where a senior manager accuses junior employees of falsehood unfairly. Moreover, the board of trustees should not to always act with speed when handling matters to do with false accusations within an organization. They should focus on getting ample grounds that will make the ultimate punishment fair and within the confines of the law (Shapiro, 2015). In circumstances where the excessive harm has been caused, the slanderous can be committed to a court of law using the Defamation Act 2013 (c 26) but the role will be taken up by the company lawyers to proof their case as made by the board. Besides the need to punish such employees, the process should be done equitably and legitimately.
The board of trustees should ensure that their work is transacted as the law requires, which strongly forbids against any improper handling of people. For instance, it would be unfair if the board considered all the reports of false accusation from top managers to be true. As a result, it will be hard for them to punish the junior employees unfairly. Sometimes, the senior managers may not get along with junior employees, and they may come up with false arguments in an attempt to punish the juniors (Duffy, 2017). As a result, the board should be clear on following the law in their work. They should not only focus on protecting the top managers but also the junior staff. When this happens, the board will earn respect and loyalty from all the employees. The board’s decisions will always be seen and defined as fair and nondiscriminatory. When employees find it easy to agree with the board of trustees and the actions they take against slanderous individuals, the board can effectively protect top managers.
When the junior employees are found to have committed an offense by extending wrong accusations against senior administrators, they should face serious legal punishments. The United Kingdom Law allows for individuals who accuse others wrongly to be charged in a court of law. The employees who are found to have a case to answer should be indicted in a court of justice (Kenyon, 2013). The punishments will depend on the magnitude of their slander on the top manager. They should not be allowed to go without legal punishments because it would encourage other employees to slander. The decision of cases in a court of law teaches employees the need for them to be of proper conduct. The United Kingdom law (Defamation Act 2013) provides that slandering individuals are punished with prison sentences of not more than six months or pay fines of up to 5,000 pounds. Moreover, it is clear that the length of imprisonment or amount of fines can get longer or higher respectively depending on the cases being considered (Shapiro, 2015).
Therefore, the boards should ensure that employees found guilty of giving some false information against top managers and even other employees are punished accordingly. They should not be allowed to corrupt the minds of the other employees and risk the overall organization’s culture. The board of trustees should be very objective in their treatment of employees (Gomez-Bravo, 2015). The employees should know that they are expected to behave within the confines of the law. For instance, it is their responsibility to see that the dignity of other employees is not tampered with by their actions or words. They need to appreciate their contributions towards peaceful coexistence within and without the organizations. The board of trustees should thus not excessively focused on punishing but rather helping employees see the reason to avoid slander (Kenyon, 2013). The employees who understand that their actions or words have repercussions can easily avoid doing anything that can be interpreted as criminal.
The board of trustees should work with other criminal investigation departments and law enforcement departments to ensure that criminals are adequately punished (Laidman, 2010). Therefore, the investigations and punishments that slanderous employees are served with should be based on adequate legal grounds. The investigations and punishments should not appear to be done or served only to the junior employees and not to the top-level managers. As a result, the board of trustees should not be hesitant to investigate and punish even the top managers whenever they are found guilty of slander (Annen, 2011). The move will not only guarantee the boards’ acceptance and credibility but also respect from all the employees. The employees will also find it easy to work with boards that are considered as fair and exhaustive in their investigations. The most significant thing the board should consider is the need for them to be relevant and helpful to the employees and the organizations they serve.
Conclusion
The board of trustees should protect top managers from attacks that are not based on facts. The top managers should be provided an opportunity to serve their organizations with ease. When employees use falsehood against top executives, the impact may be catastrophic on the manager’s mental stability and thus affect their performance. As a result, the board of trustees should punish slanderous employees appropriately. However, the board should be keen to ensure that they get enough proof to support the course of action they take against slanderous employees.


References
Annen, K. (2011). Lies and slander: Truth-Telling in Repeated Matching games with Private Monitoring. Social choice and Welfare, 37(2), 269-285.
Ansley, B.J. (2017). Criminal defamation and reputation as ‘Honour’: A Cross-Jurisdictional Perspective. Journal of Media Law, 9(1), 132-152.
Bennis, W., Goleman, D. J., & O'Toole J. (2010). Transparency: How leaders create a culture of candor. London: John Wiley & Sons
Duffy, M.J. & Alkazemi, M. (2017). Arab Defamation Laws: A Comparative Analysis of Libel and slander in the Middle east. Communication Laws and Policy, 22(2), 189-211.
Gomez-Bravo, A.M. (2015). Slander and the right to be author in Fifteenth-Century Spain. Journal of Spanish Cultural Studies, 16(3), 239-253.
Kenyon, A. (2013). Defamation: Comparative law and practice. London: CRC Press
Kenyon, A. T. (2016). Comparative Defamation and Privacy Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Krzanich, A. (2011). Virtue and Vindication: an Historical analysis of sexual slander and woman’s Good Name. Auckland University law review, 17(1), 33-59.
Laidman, D. (2010). When the slander is the Story: The Neutral Reportage Privilege in Theory and Practice. Entertainment Law Review, 17(1), 74-109.
Shapiro, A. (2015). On Libel and The Law, U.S. In addition, U.K. Go Separate Ways. NPR. Retrieved September 28 2017 from www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/on-libel-and-the-law-u-s-and-u-k-go-separate-ways
Tilley, C.C. (2011). Reviving Slander. Utah Law Review, 2011(3), 1025-1085.