I don't see how there is a case unless they changed the contract AFTER they joined and during their term (not probation).
Also if it stated that the terms could change they have the right to.
The only case would be to claim that the company 'lured' an individual with the intention to change the policy at a later date.
If they prove that there was a clear justification for the change (e.g. need to cut costs for example AND that there was clear notice) then that lawyer would be slammed down.
I think that this case was taken by the lawyer simply to gain attention, especially because it would be great publicity to go against Al Jazeera.
Here is my advice (nothing more than personal opinion)
1 The obvious rewriting of the Al Jazeera dental policy.
- If Dental is mentioned as an unstable benefid then no argument
- Main argument = Dental was a key factor to taking the job.
2 The removal of items in new contracts that were part of the original contract affecting our bottom line.
- If it's a new contract that means that the person is under a probationary term. That means that the contract isn't fully enforced. You sign a contract to sign a contract.
- Main argument = Change in terms were not forseeable. Time wasted if not mentioned.
3 Flights home being cut back to one.
- You would ONLY have a case if you could prove that you had a vacation long enough to allow more than one flight back. Legally (internationally), a company only has to give an allowance towards one flight a year.
- Main argument = health or personal reasons requiring additional flights.
4 Freelancers promised with full time work that never comes to fruition.
- A freelancer is nothing more than a freelancer. Sadly a promise is nothing more than a word if not in writing and not in a professional scenario.
- Main argument = To prove that the job was taken as a condition to acceptance of a job NOT as freelance work.
5 The constant issue of journalists & editors claims being reimbursed
- The strongest case here. Reimbursement has to be made in accordance to policy. For this I advise a STRONG hand and unity in a formal meeting. IF there has been NO formal meeting, the case would be delayed and most likely it would be settled anyway and you'd just end up wasting time.
^_^
__________________________ <-- Cost of Living, Visas, Safety Info, Tips on Moving, Facts, Pictures, Videos, and more!
I don't see how there is a case unless they changed the contract AFTER they joined and during their term (not probation).
Also if it stated that the terms could change they have the right to.
The only case would be to claim that the company 'lured' an individual with the intention to change the policy at a later date.
If they prove that there was a clear justification for the change (e.g. need to cut costs for example AND that there was clear notice) then that lawyer would be slammed down.
I think that this case was taken by the lawyer simply to gain attention, especially because it would be great publicity to go against Al Jazeera.
Here is my advice (nothing more than personal opinion)
1 The obvious rewriting of the Al Jazeera dental policy.
- If Dental is mentioned as an unstable benefid then no argument
- Main argument = Dental was a key factor to taking the job.
2 The removal of items in new contracts that were part of the original contract affecting our bottom line.
- If it's a new contract that means that the person is under a probationary term. That means that the contract isn't fully enforced. You sign a contract to sign a contract.
- Main argument = Change in terms were not forseeable. Time wasted if not mentioned.
3 Flights home being cut back to one.
- You would ONLY have a case if you could prove that you had a vacation long enough to allow more than one flight back. Legally (internationally), a company only has to give an allowance towards one flight a year.
- Main argument = health or personal reasons requiring additional flights.
4 Freelancers promised with full time work that never comes to fruition.
- A freelancer is nothing more than a freelancer. Sadly a promise is nothing more than a word if not in writing and not in a professional scenario.
- Main argument = To prove that the job was taken as a condition to acceptance of a job NOT as freelance work.
5 The constant issue of journalists & editors claims being reimbursed
- The strongest case here. Reimbursement has to be made in accordance to policy. For this I advise a STRONG hand and unity in a formal meeting. IF there has been NO formal meeting, the case would be delayed and most likely it would be settled anyway and you'd just end up wasting time.
^_^
<-- Cost of Living, Visas, Safety Info, Tips on Moving, Facts, Pictures, Videos, and more!
__________________________