Unfair dismissal claim/Advice

According to the employment act of 1996, it is the right of a worker not to be dismissed unfairly by his employer. An employee is dismissed by an employer if the employer terminates the contract under which he is employment whether he has been noticed or not. The act also provides that when determining the purpose for dismissal whether fairly or unfairly it is the responsibility of the employer to show reason or the main reason if they are more than one for dismissing the employee. Such a reason should be related to the qualification or capability of the employee to perform the kind of work that he was employed to do or should relate to the employee’s conduct. The 2010 Act on equality provides that it is against the law to discriminate against any employee on the basis of their age. Compulsory retirement on the basis of one’s age is considered to be unfair dismissal in law unless the employer can justify to it objectively (CABRELLI, 2014, Pg.585).

The ACAS code of practice recommendation is that dismissal of an employee should not normally happen due to a failure to reach the expected standard unless an opportunity for improvement that has target and timescales that are reasonable have been provided. The Employment Act of 1996 provides that it is the right of the employee to be provided a minimum notice by the employer on the intention to terminate his employment contract more so for the employee who has been employed for a month or more. The notice should not be less than twelve weeks’ notice if he has been in continuous employment for a twelve years or more.

In the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Beck UKEAT/0141/10/RN case, the appellant tribunal found that it was satisfied to state that the role of the claimant was not redundant according to the evidence presented. The evidence clearly brings out the suggestion that Mr. Meloche and Mr. Risler had a feeling that claimant together with his team were not of high quality ,and according to words of Mr Howard, had resolved to have the marketing team upgraded. Mr Meloche said that his view was that the marketing business was not properly organised and managed and there seemed to be no plan for sustainable business. The tribunal went ahead to say that even if Mr Meloche’s view was genuine it was not true that the position was genuine. Hence the plan was to have another person take over the claimant’s position who possessed similar skills. The new employee would do a job similar to that done by the claimant and that their capabilities and skills were substantially the same as for the claimant. It further noted that the insistence by the Respondent that a redundancy was there had not assisted the proceeding’s credibility. The tribunal thus concluded that the appellant had presented fair reasons for that dismissal, and thus it was unfair. In regard to age discrimination the claimant’s statement was that he had satisfied all personal requirement specified except that he couldn’t be regarded as young. The tribunal held that it would be unlikely for the Bank to recruit someone younger to replace someone six years older. However, the use of the word ‘younger’ caused the need for explanation.  The tribunal came to the conclusion that the reasons provided for dismissal were not enough and thus age discrimination claim succeeded (Employment case Updates, 2011 Pg.1).

In relation to this case, Gary would succeed in suing the Television station for unfair dismissal on the ground that there was no justifiable evidence to show that his lack of advanced knowledge on technology resulted to poor performance. He would also claim that referring by referring to his ‘old ways’ was a direct reference to his age and that it would result to formidable case. Another legal issue is that he was not involved in a discussion about his dismissal and was not provided a timely notice for the same. His claim would involve the fact that he has the capability to carry out the job and in no single moment has he been unable to do so.  

 

References

CABRELLI, D. (2014). Employment law in context. OUP.582-587

Employment case Updates, (2011) Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Beck UKEAT/0141/10/RN. Available at: http://www.employmentcasesupdate.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed5961