WHY THE EMPLOYEES DEALING WITH THIRD PARTIES SHOULD ATTEND ‘LEGAL for NON-LEGAL’ TRAINING?

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 registered copyright;

David, Susan 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 under law.

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 “agreement” format.

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 data.

What did go wrong in the above cases?

David, Susan & Tom were ignorant about the applicable laws..!! they have violated certain laws due to ignorance and ‘Ignorance of law is not an excuse’.

Today’s 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 prepositions.

One way to overcome this embarrassment is to impart basic legal training to the employees who deal with third parties.

Other than the above, following reasons justify a short training session on the ‘Legal for Non-Legal’

1)   An Organization which follows the law scrupulously would always have outnumbered among the competitors;

2)   The training provides the insight of basic legal principles behind the business of the organization;

3)   Sensitize the employees about the applicable laws and compliances related to the business;

4)   Being aware of the laws, the compliances thereto becomes easy. Employees understand the consequences of non-compliances;

5)   Employees know the legal implications before entering into the correspondences with third parties;

6)   It minimises the conflicts in business;

7)   It boosts the confidence of the employees;

8)   Legally supported service conditions would motivate the employees to deliver their best, resulting in better productivity.

9)   It’ll create safe & healthy working environment.

10) It makes the transactions with vendors, contractors or with customers smooth and foster a healthy the relationship; 

·        L