The current information on the equipment is that it is suitable for the purpose it is intended for and takes into account the working conditions, health and safety needs of the employees because Roz has promised to offer training for use of the equipment. Currently, Abbie is obligated to use the new equipment because she has not proven that the introduction of the equipment has not met the provisions of 1998 (PUWER), thereby contravening it3.Abbie’s obligation to use the equipment is also covered under the that was enacted by the Conservative government codifying the law on individual rights in UK labour law4. Section 1(2) of the ERA 1996 requires that the terms of a contract be in writing and given to the employee within the first 8 weeks of their employment. Both Roz and Abbie are covered by this law. This law does not require all issues in the contract to be put in writing. It only requires that the major aspects of the contract be included in the written contract5. Therefore, Abbie is obligated to use the equipment because this is covered either in writing or not in her contract obligations.In the issue regarding whether Abbie is obligated to use the new equipment, her work environment and current evidence show that she is obligated to use it. In reference to the it appears that the company has met the provisions stated in the law because when introducing the equipment, she informed Abbie that she would receive training which addresses the necessary support and safety issues attached to the use of the new equipment6. Roz has not broken any law in introducing the new equipment and Abbie’s argument is an issue regarding preference and not an issue of breaking the law. Therefore, Abbie is obligated to use the new equipment unless she can prove that it is harmful to her health or fails to fulfil the contract obligations on the part of the employer.Abbie’s obligation to use the equipment can also be referred from Cresswell v Inland Revenue7 where the high court ruled in favour of Inland Revenue as the employer after Cresswell (employee) had sued stating that the requirement to use computerized record systems to calculate taxes and send letters breached terms of
Health Board v B C and the Labour Court  ELR, EE10/92
Cresswell v Inland Revenue  ICR 508
Miles v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council  IRLR 193
Morrish v Henleys (Folklore) Ltd  ICR 482
Reed and Bull Information Systems Ltd v Stedman  IRLR 299
Royle v Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council  IRLR 184
Worker v Mid Western Health Board  ELR 1
Employment Rights Act of 1996 (ERA)
Equality Act of 2010
Employment Equality (Sex Discrimination) Regulations 2005
Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations of 1998 (PUWER)
European Union Legislation
The Equal Treatment Direction 2006/54/EC
Burrows, Andrew S. English Private Law. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).
Channing, John. Safety at Work. (London: Butterworths, 1986).
Davies, Alex. Workplace Law Handbook 2012: Health and Safety, Premises and Environment. (London: KoganPage, 2011).
Feldman, David. English Public Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Marson, James. Beginning Employment Law. Oxon: Routledge, Taylor and Francis, 2014.
Moffatt, Jane. Employment Law. New York. Oxford University Press, 2006.
Leighton, Patricia. Contract of employment. Industrial Law Journal, 14 (1) (1985): 51-53. doi: 10.1093/ilj/14.1.51
Monti, Giorgio. "Understanding Sexual Harassment a Little Better Reed and Bull Information Systems Ltd v. Stedman." Feminist Legal Studies 8, no. 3 (2000): 367-377.
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples