Advise on whether Clarissa can pursue a claim for unfair dismissal compensation against Precision Missiles PLC
The Employment Rights Act of 1996 and the Employment Act of 2002 deals with the issue of unfair dismissal of employees and Clarissa should be conversant with the provisions of this Act. Moreover, Clarissa needs to know that the employment tribunal deals with issues of unfair dismissal and that she has to prove that she is entitled to bring a claim of unfair dismissal and a claim for compensation before presenting her claim. In addition, she needs to understand that the claim for unfair dismissal would only be applicable if she brings it exactly after three months after termination of her contract of employment by his employer. Clarissa should know that the preconditions laid down by the Employments Rights Act to bring for bringing a claim of unfair dismissal and a claim for redundancy pay requires that she has served in her contract of employment continuously for a minimum of one year and two year respectively. Accordingly, she should know that since she meets these preconditions and she is entitled to bring both a claim for unfair dismissal and a claim for redundancy pay against Precision Missiles plc since she has worked for the Company for a period of thirty years .
In coming to a decision whether her dismissal is unfair, Clarissa needs to now that the tribunal will concentrate on whether her dismissal was reasonable or unreasonable and this would depend on the general size of her employers, administrative resources of her employers, the circumstances that led to her dismissal and equity. It is important that employers give their employers prior notice for termination of a contract and reason for termination...
... middle of paper ...
...urnett, S. Employment Law. Oxford University Press, UK, 2007.
Smith , I. and Baker, A. Smith and Woods Employment Law 10th edit, Oxford, OUP, 2010.
Website
Hillier. A., ‘Garden Leave Up-date’, Kbw, , 2010 (Accessed 29th November, 2011)
Legislations
Employees Rights Act, 1996
Employment Act, 2002
Cases
Citing Miles v. Wakefield MBC, 1987, AC, 539, HL.
Evening Standard Co. Ltd. v Henderson, 1987, IC, 588.
London Borough of Brent vs. Fuller, 2011, IRLR, 414.
Standard Health Care Ltd v Gorman, 2010, IRLR, 233, CA.
Symbian Ltd v Christense, 2001, IRLR, 77, CA.
SG&R Valuation Service Co LLC v Boundaries, 2008, IRLR, 770.
Norton Tool Co Ltd v Tewson , 1973, 1, WLR, 45, NIRC.
Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd, 1988, AC, 344, HL.
William-Hill Organization Ltd. v. Tucker, 2008, IRLR, 770.
The decision in Equuscorp is significant, as it has made clear several principles that were once ambiguous under Australian law. It ratifies that restitutionary remedies are unavailable for a claim for money had and received where recovery would reduce coherence in the law. Furthermore, Equuscorp has confirmed that a bare cause of action can be assigned where the assignee has a genuine commercial interest in its enforcement.
1. As the person, responsible for labor relations at Barrera Recycling Company, articulate a case to support your contention that there was just cause for the discharge of Erin McNamara.
Sam Johnson a non-union employee advised his supervisor that he was diagnosed with AIDS. Sam considered this important information to tell his co-worker Catherine so she was able to take the necessary precautions. However, Catherine reacted poorly to this news and enacted her right to refuse work with Sam due to fear. A problem arose because the supervisor considered this refusal to work insubordination and asked Clark for advice. This issue has now escalated as Clark believe it is a good idea to fire both of them, deeming it a health and safety issue and insubordination. However, Maple Leaf Shoes Ltd. does not have just cause to dismiss John or Catherine. Maple Leaf has to make accommodations for both of these individuals. The company should make arrangements to move Catherine to a different department if she feels unsafe working with John. However, it is extremely unlikely that Catherine will contract the disease from John in this work environment if safety precautions are taken into consideration. Furthermore, education opportunities should be provided to employees and supervisors, including Clark to learn about HIV/AIDS in order to come to the understanding that John is still a valuable employee even though he is ill. John should be able to remain in his position, unless his illness does not allow him to continue. This is the ideal situation as John could have a case against the company to sue for wrongful dismissing without cause, due to the fact that he notified his co-worker and supervisor when he found out. John has been a valuable employee for the past 8 years. He should be able to receive the benefits offered to him from this company. As mentioned in the assignment, the company is considering moving to a flexible benefits plan where this can be utilized to John’s choice. This would be beneficial for both parties as the plan will allow John to continue working for the company, until such time he does
Moran, J. J. (2008). Employment law: New challenges in the business environment. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Ferguson, J. (1997), Casual Employment Contracts: Continuing Confusion when Protection and Free Market Clash, New Zealand Journal of Industrial Relations, 22(1): 123-142
Consequently, Jones reported she suffered adverse employment action by her superiors, who “treated her rudely and changed her job responsibilities” (Motos, 1998).
At the behest of Solicitor General John Les, an inquiry was launched in February o...
Ans. 6 The Court can overrule the decision for terminating Paul as he was not involved in the scheme. Due to his honesty he even admitted to be aware of the scheme. Moreover, no fraud was found in his facility and he should be held responsible for the warehouse for which he is in charge. Furthermore, higher management should be held responsible for not keeping an eye on the activities of supervisors at different locations.
The purpose of this paper is to analyze a specific, hypothetical employment situation encountered and to include the information regarding employment conflicts, questions, grievances, lawsuits, etc., in terms of how the situation was handled or resolved. Employment conflicts are a constant issue everyday in any organization; it is how you handle them both legally and professionally that counts.
Commission for Labor Cooperation (2002) “ United States Labor Law.” Viewed online on 11/18/2004 at http://www.naalc.org/english/publications/labormain.htm
United States of America. National Employment Law Project. National Employment Law Project. N.p., Jan. 2011. Web. 18 May 2014.
The distinction between an unfair prejudice petition and a statutory derivative action has always been in the nature of remedy sought by the claimant. This is arguably the point where a distinction is drawn as to whether a statutory derivative action or an unfair prejudice petition should be pursued. A d...
During the court, P4P issued the Decision Letter (No.660/48/17-10/IX/PHK/4-1999) that the defendant was not allowed to dismiss their employees. The reason was because there was not agreement between the defendant and the 153 employees. The defendant refused that Decision Letter because that would cause the defendant should give the job to the employees back and should pay their wage.
John W. Budd & Devasheesh Bhave (2006). Sage Handbook of Industrial and Employment Relations. Industrial Relations Center, University of Minnesota. Chapter 5.
In this case, Saito Sdn. Bhd. unilaterally terminated the benefits enjoyed by Roslan. When Roslan believes that her employer is accused of breaching an implied term of the employee’s contract of the employment as her employer had removed the benefits from her and generally it clear that the employee is no longer important. Therefore, constructive dismissal occurred. In this situation, Roslan was advised that make a formal complaint to her employer requesting that the problem be rectified. For instance, Roslan should write a formal letter to her employer asking for the reinstating the previously benefits. If no satisfactory rectification is made, the employee can walk off the job. The law of constructive dismissal requires the employee to leave in a timely manner. She must not delay too long.