Employment Law Assignment: Turnitin Submission, Marking Criteria, Learning Outcomes, and Plagiarism

1. Electronic copy of assignment must be submitted through the Turnitin software.

2. This assignment will be marked electronically and results available online through Grademark in Turnitin within 3 weeks of the submission date.

3. 10% of marks are awarded for satisfactory use of language and/or good presentation.

4. 5% of marks are awarded for satisfactory referencing and/or presentation of a bibliography where either is required. Note that all referenced work should be obtained from credible sources.

5. Students should ensure that they comply with Glyndwr University’s plagiarism policy.

6. Students should make correct use of the Harvard referencing method.

Learning Outcomes Tested in this Assignment :

4. Critically discuss the provisions regarding equality and family friendly rights

5. Demonstrate a practical understanding of the law of dismissal and redundancy and actions short of dismissal and redundancy

6. Explain and evaluate the legal principles underpinning the law on health and safety and industrial action

Would students please note that achievement of the learning outcomes for this assessment is demonstrated against the assessment criteria shown below (which are not necessarily weighted equally).  All marks/grades remain indicative until they have been considered and confirmed by the Assessment Board

Assessment Criteria

Outline and articulate the statutory and common law provisions in relation to the employment law. Use a wide variety of relevant case law to illustrate the legal issues.

Critically analyse potential problems regarding the application of the law as it applies to employee protection from the perspective of both business and the employee. Sustained arguments are used throughout.

Wide ranging references with the correct use of the Harvard system

Quality of the written work. Clear structure to the work and correct spelling was used throughout.

Additional Comments from Second marker or External Examiner (if required) :

Grading & Marking Criteria for BA Programmes

Outstanding work of exceptional merit which is original in content or approach allowing a novel perspective, going beyond what is available in the literature.

Work which is clearly articulated and well substantiated, based on extensive reading, and demonstrates an authoritative grasp of the concepts, methodology and content appropriate to the subject and to the assessed task. There is clear evidence of originality and insight and an ability to sustain an argument, to think analytically and/or critically and to synthesise material effectively.

Work which demonstrates a very good level of understanding of the concepts, methodology and content appropriate to the subject and which draws on a wide range of properly referenced sources. There is clear evidence of critical judgement in selecting, ordering and analysing content. The work demonstrates some ability to synthesise material and to construct responses which reveal insight and may offer some occasional originality.

Marking Criteria

Work derived from a solid basis of reading and which demonstrates a grasp of relevant material and key concepts and an ability to structure and organise arguments. The performance may be rather routine but the work will be accurate, clearly written and include some critical analysis and a modest degree of original insight. There will be no serious omissions or irrelevancies.

Competent and suitably organised work which demonstrates a reasonable level of understanding with minimal analysis and interpretation. It covers the basic subject matter adequately but is too descriptive and insufficiently analytical. There may be some misunderstanding of key concepts and limitations in the ability to select relevant material so that the work may be flawed by some omissions and irrelevancies. There will be some evidence of appropriate reading but it may be too narrowly focussed.

Work lacks evidence of knowledge relevant to the topic and/or significantly misuses terminology. There is either no evidence of literature being consulted or irrelevant to the assignment set. Inaccurate or inappropriate choice of theory. Unsubstantiated/invalid conclusions based on anecdote and generalisation only, or no conclusions at all. Lacks critical thought, analysis and reference to theory.

Insufficient level of understanding and knowledge base unacceptably weak. No evidence of logical structure and poorly presented. Referencing is unsystematic or absent.

Demonstrates an excellent understanding of the legal issues that underpin the critical essays and the case study and is able to formulate a full, wholly credible and well-informed response to each of the tasks.

Covers all relevant issues fully. Demonstrates familiarity and understanding with the most recent developments in employment law which have relevance to the assessment. A good capacity for critical thinking is evidenced.

Makes detailed, appropriate, thoughtful and wholly appropriate recommendations, taking full account of both practical management issues and the expectations of the law. Justifies these to a very high standard.

The answers are informed to a high degree by a wide range of appropriate reading and are referenced accordingly. Up-to-date case law is used to back up the key points that are made as well as other sources of information. Clear original arguments are developed and justified.

The answers are well-structured and presented very professionally.

Demonstrates good, solid understanding of the major legal issues that are raised in the assessment. Covers most relevant issues fully. Demonstrates some familiarity and understanding of contemporary developments in employment law which have relevance to the assessment.

Learning Outcomes

Makes sound, thoughtful and credible recommendations, taking some account of practical management issues as well as the law. Justifies recommendations effectively.

The answers are informed by a good range of appropriate reading and are referenced accordingly. Some up-to-date case law is used to back up the key points that are made as well as other sources of information. Some original arguments are developed and justified. Some capacity for critical thinking is evidenced.

The answers are nicely-structured and professionally presented. The writing style is clear and concise.

Demonstrates a reasonable understanding of most of the legal issues that underpin the assessment and is able to formulate a sound, well-informed response to each of the three tasks.

Makes useful and appropriate recommendations and makes a reasonable attempt at justifying these. Covers a good range of the relevant issues raised in the assessment. Demonstrates some capacity for original analysis.

The answers are informed by appropriate reading and are referenced accordingly. Some case references and published material are used to back up key points.   

The answers are acceptably presented and structured. The writing style is sufficiently clear and concise to be understood.

Demonstrates an adequate understanding of the legal issues that are raised in the case and are able to formulate a reasonably well-informed response to one or more of the tasks. Misses significant points. Rather simplistic in its consideration of the complexities associated with the issues raised.  

Makes reasonable recommendations but provides barely sufficient, credible justification for them. Covers too few of the relevant issues raised in the case. Demonstrates just sufficient capacity for original analysis, answers are rather descriptive in nature.

The answers are just sufficiently informed. Limited reference to case evidence or published examples to back up key points.   

The answers are adequately presented or structured but not to a professional standard.

Demonstrates an insufficient understanding of the legal issues that are raised in the assessment and is unable to formulate a reasonably well-informed response to one or more of the tasks. Misses significant points. Overly simplistic in its consideration of the complexities associated with the issues raised.  

Makes poor or inappropriate recommendations or fails to provide sufficient, credible justification for them. Covers too few of the relevant issues raised in the case. Demonstrates insufficient capacity for original analysis, submitting answers which are overly descriptive in nature.

The answers are insufficiently informed. Does not reference case evidence or published examples to back up key points.   

The answers are not professionally presented or structured. The writing style is insufficiently clear and concise to be understood.