WHY THE EMPLOYEES DEALING WITH THIRD PARTIES SHOULD ATTEND ‘LEGAL for
David is working as a supply chain manager for a leading
trading company. Part of his daily activities, he used to exchange several
emails with his vendors. In one of the cases, a vendor raised a dispute and has
claimed that it was part of the terms agreed. David explained to the management
that there was no agreement executed between the company and the vendor and it was just
shared through email; hence it’s not binding upon the company..!
A man-power supply agency has convinced Susan, an HR
Manager of a logistic firm that they can deploy the workers less than the
minimum wages fixed by the authorities with an undertaking that they are liable
in case of any legal action is initiated against the company by the labour
authorities; Susan was happy as she could win the negotiation on the contract
price which is less than that of last years’ price. The management got a non-compliance
notice from the labour authorities.
Tom was in hurry to prepare a presentation for his
Manager as he needs to present it to a prospective customer group meeting fixed
the 2nd half of the day. Since he did not have sufficient time for research for
some data, he copied it from a research report and has reproduced it to the
presentation as it is. When it was circulated among the customers, Tom’s
Manager got a notice from the ‘data owner’ that he has committed an offence
under IPR Laws, as he has not taken the permission to copy the data which has a
and Tom are not part of the legal department. They do not have any legal acumen
to understand the do’s and don’t’s
what David was not aware that even an email exchange is a
legally valid contract even if it is not signed by the parties in an
Susan did not know that agreeing to the wages less than
‘minimum wages’ is illegal, her company (being the Principal employer) is
responsible for the non-compliance.
Tom overlooked the ‘disclaimer’ in the Report he had
copied from internet specifically stipulates the prior permission for using the
What did go
wrong in the above cases?
& Tom were ignorant about the applicable laws..!! they have violated
certain laws due to ignorance and ‘Ignorance of law is not an excuse’.
Corporate world, we do many things which might have certain legal implications.
It’s not always practical to rush to legal team/lawyers before shooting each
email or negotiation. In all three cases above, the management of each
organization are threatened with legal action. It’s happened because the
employees who are dealing with the cases are not aware of the basic legal
One way to
overcome this embarrassment is to impart basic legal training to the employees
who deal with third parties.
the above, following reasons justify a short training session on the ‘Legal for
Organization which follows the law scrupulously would always have outnumbered
among the competitors;
training provides the insight of basic legal principles behind the business of
the employees about the applicable laws and compliances related to the
aware of the laws, the compliances thereto becomes easy. Employees understand
the consequences of non-compliances;
know the legal implications before entering into the correspondences with third
minimises the conflicts in business;
boosts the confidence of the employees;
supported service conditions would motivate the employees to deliver their
best, resulting in better productivity.
create safe & healthy working environment.
makes the transactions with vendors, contractors or with customers smooth and
foster a healthy the relationship;