18/06/2014
Dear Mr Cook,
I am writing in connection with the advertisement for the apprentice digital video production producer job. As a concerned media student, I would like to make a proposal how to improve your advertisement. The advertisement appears to undergo some contractual, legal and ethical issues. Indeed there are evidences to show that there are religious views and age discrimination issues presented in the job description. It is outlined in the advertisement that you are looking for a male/female aged below 30. It is not acceptable and it can be said unarguably that you are violating the law. There are laws that prohibit employment discrimination because of age. Discrimination due to religious views also occurs when you mention that an applicant should promote the ideals of the Christian faith. Besides, the advertisement presents an extremely broad contract, where the hours of work per week are between 10-45 hours and the salary is between £15,000 and £35,000. The job role is limited by an exclusivity clause where the successful applicant must agree to only work for your organisation. However, the advertisement does not include a confidentiality clause, which is optional but can be used as an advantage to your organisation because it offers protection against former employees who might use confidential information at a new workplace.
As an employer you should value the diversity of our society and strive to employ a workforce that reflects the community you serve. The Equality Act 2010 provides protection against discrimination on the basis of age in hiring, promotion, discharge, compensation, or terms, conditions or privileges of employment. Employers who discriminate on the basis of age face awards of unlimited compensation. Miriam O'Reilly's case is one of the ageism examples. Former presenter Miriam O'Reilly was fired in 2009 on the basis of her age. She went to court and won an age discrimination case against the BBC in 2011. You, as an employer, should reduce the risk of discrimination complaints from disgruntled job applicants. Your job advertisements should avoid requirements which would automatically rule older or younger workers out of a role. According to the Equality Act, 'employees and applicants are protected if they follow any religion, do not follow a certain religion or have no religion at all'. The Act states 'it is unlawful to discriminate a person on the basis of his/her religious beliefs'. In 2007 British Airways employee suffered discrimination at work over her Christian beliefs. Nadia Eweida took her case to the European Court of Human Rights after BA made her stop wearing her white gold cross visibly. She won the case a year later.Requesting to film a short documentary for the job application you are trying to avoid employer liability. According to the law, an employer has liability for copyright infringement by employees. An applicant is not covered by this law because he/she is not employed. The applicant can be sued, face criminal charges or fined for copyright infringement because you demand him to use a popular music soundtrack in the documentary. Even if he/she decides to pay for the soundtrack, he/she will face big expenses that are not covered by compensation of £20 that you offer. Besides, it shall be the duty of every employer to ensure the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees. Moreover, an employee can join trade union in order to gain greater power and security at work. Trade union membership can provide greater influence collectively with employers than workers have as separate individuals.To sum up all things mentioned above, I can state that an applicant will not be protected until employed.
As an employer you should value the diversity of our society and strive to employ a workforce that reflects the community you serve. The Equality Act 2010 provides protection against discrimination on the basis of age in hiring, promotion, discharge, compensation, or terms, conditions or privileges of employment. Employers who discriminate on the basis of age face awards of unlimited compensation. Miriam O'Reilly's case is one of the ageism examples. Former presenter Miriam O'Reilly was fired in 2009 on the basis of her age. She went to court and won an age discrimination case against the BBC in 2011. You, as an employer, should reduce the risk of discrimination complaints from disgruntled job applicants. Your job advertisements should avoid requirements which would automatically rule older or younger workers out of a role. According to the Equality Act, 'employees and applicants are protected if they follow any religion, do not follow a certain religion or have no religion at all'. The Act states 'it is unlawful to discriminate a person on the basis of his/her religious beliefs'. In 2007 British Airways employee suffered discrimination at work over her Christian beliefs. Nadia Eweida took her case to the European Court of Human Rights after BA made her stop wearing her white gold cross visibly. She won the case a year later.Requesting to film a short documentary for the job application you are trying to avoid employer liability. According to the law, an employer has liability for copyright infringement by employees. An applicant is not covered by this law because he/she is not employed. The applicant can be sued, face criminal charges or fined for copyright infringement because you demand him to use a popular music soundtrack in the documentary. Even if he/she decides to pay for the soundtrack, he/she will face big expenses that are not covered by compensation of £20 that you offer. Besides, it shall be the duty of every employer to ensure the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees. Moreover, an employee can join trade union in order to gain greater power and security at work. Trade union membership can provide greater influence collectively with employers than workers have as separate individuals.To sum up all things mentioned above, I can state that an applicant will not be protected until employed.
As an employer, you are responsible for drawing up and passing Codes of practice and policies and procedures on applicants to avoid legal issues. Guidelines under these codes should be designed to ensure that generally accepted standards are applied to contents of the documentary to provide protection for adults and people under eighteen from harmful and offensive material. The guidelines should also promote socially positive values.The representation within the proposed documentary may break ethical codes. You are asking the applicant to portray females as victims of rape and males as rapists. This is completely wrong to stereotype against genders simply stating that females are victims of rape and that males are rapists. Although sexual assault more commonly affects women, men are also affected. Therefore, this representation can create social concerns because, as it is widely known, media can influence the audience. In this case the video can lead to negative perception of male population.
You are also asking the applicant to interview teenagers - rape victims and offenders. Film makers should pay particular attention to the privacy of people under eighteen.There is a whole section of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code dedicated to protecting children: 'Protecting the Under-Eighteens'. If to assess the proposed documentary against the Code, we find the film is likely to break the code rules. According to the Code 'material that might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of people under eighteen must not be broadcast'. Therefore, you are breaching the Code rules asking 'to plan and produce a short documentary (including re-enactments) that can be shown to children at high school promoting the No Means No date rape campaign'. Moreover, you are asking to include interviews of teenagers 'who might be/have been affected by the topic'. In accordance with the Code 'broadcasters should pay particular regard to the potentially vulnerable position of any person who is not yet adult who is involved as a witness or victim'. The following sections support the rule mentioned above: 1.28 'Due care must be taken over the physical and emotional welfare and the dignity of people under eighteen who take part or are otherwise involved in programmes. This is irrespective of any consent given by the participant or by a parent, guardian or other person over the age of eighteen in loco parentis'; 1.29 'People under eighteen must not be caused unnecessary distress or anxiety by their involvement in programmes or by the broadcast of those programmes'. In Section Two: 'Harm and Offence' the rules are also designed to protect people under eighteen: 'the content of media services must provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of harmful and/or offensive material'. I would like to remind you that Ofcom, the UK’s broadcasting regulatory body, came into existence in January 2003 and exist because of the Communications Act (2003) and the Broadcasting Act (2010). The Obscene Publications Act 1959 (and later amendments) is designed ‘to penalise purveyors of obscene material by making it an offence‘, and ‘to prevent such materials from reaching the market by way of seizure and forfeiture proceedings’. You are breaking the Act in your intention to show the video with enactments at High School where the children age range is 11 – 16 years old.This is also inappropriate due to the BBFC’s (The British Board of Film Classification) rating of such videos. According to the classification guidelines the proposed video will get certification as a film for 18 – suitable only for adults. No one younger than 18 may see the film, where material or treatment appears to us to risk harm to individuals or, through their behaviour, to society. For example, the detailed portrayal of violent or dangerous acts, or sexual violence, or other harmful violent activities. This is done to protect children from potentially harmful or otherwise unsuitable media content. You also violate the Intellectual Property law asking the applicant to use a “popular music soundtrack” offering a compensation of £20. The applicant may be forced to break Copyright law using a popular soundtrack without permission because £20 offered by you is not obviously enough to cover the purchase of the right to use the track in the video. It is not a guarantee that the applicant will get the written permission from the copyright holder(s) or publishers of the music to use the soundtrack production either. I do not think you are not aware of the potential infringements.
You are also asking the applicant to interview teenagers - rape victims and offenders. Film makers should pay particular attention to the privacy of people under eighteen.There is a whole section of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code dedicated to protecting children: 'Protecting the Under-Eighteens'. If to assess the proposed documentary against the Code, we find the film is likely to break the code rules. According to the Code 'material that might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of people under eighteen must not be broadcast'. Therefore, you are breaching the Code rules asking 'to plan and produce a short documentary (including re-enactments) that can be shown to children at high school promoting the No Means No date rape campaign'. Moreover, you are asking to include interviews of teenagers 'who might be/have been affected by the topic'. In accordance with the Code 'broadcasters should pay particular regard to the potentially vulnerable position of any person who is not yet adult who is involved as a witness or victim'. The following sections support the rule mentioned above: 1.28 'Due care must be taken over the physical and emotional welfare and the dignity of people under eighteen who take part or are otherwise involved in programmes. This is irrespective of any consent given by the participant or by a parent, guardian or other person over the age of eighteen in loco parentis'; 1.29 'People under eighteen must not be caused unnecessary distress or anxiety by their involvement in programmes or by the broadcast of those programmes'. In Section Two: 'Harm and Offence' the rules are also designed to protect people under eighteen: 'the content of media services must provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of harmful and/or offensive material'. I would like to remind you that Ofcom, the UK’s broadcasting regulatory body, came into existence in January 2003 and exist because of the Communications Act (2003) and the Broadcasting Act (2010). The Obscene Publications Act 1959 (and later amendments) is designed ‘to penalise purveyors of obscene material by making it an offence‘, and ‘to prevent such materials from reaching the market by way of seizure and forfeiture proceedings’. You are breaking the Act in your intention to show the video with enactments at High School where the children age range is 11 – 16 years old.This is also inappropriate due to the BBFC’s (The British Board of Film Classification) rating of such videos. According to the classification guidelines the proposed video will get certification as a film for 18 – suitable only for adults. No one younger than 18 may see the film, where material or treatment appears to us to risk harm to individuals or, through their behaviour, to society. For example, the detailed portrayal of violent or dangerous acts, or sexual violence, or other harmful violent activities. This is done to protect children from potentially harmful or otherwise unsuitable media content. You also violate the Intellectual Property law asking the applicant to use a “popular music soundtrack” offering a compensation of £20. The applicant may be forced to break Copyright law using a popular soundtrack without permission because £20 offered by you is not obviously enough to cover the purchase of the right to use the track in the video. It is not a guarantee that the applicant will get the written permission from the copyright holder(s) or publishers of the music to use the soundtrack production either. I do not think you are not aware of the potential infringements.
Thank you very much for reading my letter. I hope you will take my arguments into consideration in order to improve your advertisement and to avoid the contractual, legal and ethical issues in the future.
Yours sincerely,
Vlad Taraskin
References:
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/sites/default/files/attachments/BBFC%20Classification%20Guidelines%202014_0.pdf
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/broadcast/831190/broadcastingcode2011.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85012/easy-read.pdf
http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/d/n/Religion-or-Belief-and-the_workplace-guide.pdf
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1959/66/pdfs/ukpga_19590066_en.pdf
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/7-8/66/contents
http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jan/11/countryfile-miriam-oreilly-tribunal
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2264855/Nadia-Eweida-BA-bullying-lawyers-I-God-side.html
References:
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/sites/default/files/attachments/BBFC%20Classification%20Guidelines%202014_0.pdf
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/broadcast/831190/broadcastingcode2011.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85012/easy-read.pdf
http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/d/n/Religion-or-Belief-and-the_workplace-guide.pdf
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1959/66/pdfs/ukpga_19590066_en.pdf
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/7-8/66/contents
http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jan/11/countryfile-miriam-oreilly-tribunal
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2264855/Nadia-Eweida-BA-bullying-lawyers-I-God-side.html
