Gary versus Ron case

Introduction

    Employment is threatened by varying circumstances and it can have an overwhelming impact and especially where the threat is perceived as unjust or rather unfair.  Providentially, most employers will offer opportunities through issuing of warnings to their employees where their code of conduct is in line with the organization's rules, standards, and laws. Thus warnings are issued to the employees following their unsatisfactory behavior thus they are allowed to have a second chance to rectify and to resolve the situation. However, this is not usually the case as some of the employees fail to give their workers second chances or warning and thus they are forced to give out redundancies and terminations of the employment contract. Unfair dismissal, therefore, refers to the firing of an employee out of the job unreasonably and without a proper notice or rather compensation. Some of these employees fail to sue their employees or their wrongful firing since they fall into one of the belief (Duncan 2016). However, unfair dismissal application is limited to only small business employees where the workers are less than fifteen. Unfair dismissal law has been established with an objective of providing rules that govern whether the dismissal of the employee was fair and reasonable and offers the remedies for the resolving the issue. It is, therefore, important to note that before dismissal of a given employee, the employer must be able to follow a given process and he must show that they have assisted the employer to improve on his work before dismissing them. Failure to do so, the employer has a right to sue the employee as they are protected by the employment tribunal. This paper, therefore, will base its argument on the case of Gary versus Ron where Gary is advised on how to handle the issue with Ron and the legal issues on the case.

Issues

    Ron qualified to make a claim since he is one of the employees thus he can be protected by the law under section 94 in the Employment Regulation Act (ERA). He is also an EU worker who is as well entitled to protection under article (7) of the regulation of 492/2011. He had a case since he was entitled by the law to make a claim for an unfair dismissal once he was employed for ten years. The law allows for an employee to make a allege for unmerited firing if he has been working for more than two years and in this case, Ron was employed by the company for more than two years. Hence, with the law under section 181, Ron qualifies to make a claim within three months.

    His dismissal was unfair since the employer failed to follow a fair process as per the ACAS code of disciplinary and grievances. He did not receive a notice as required under the S. 95 (ERA1996). Though the dismissal was clear the employer failed to give out a written letter showing the reasons as to why they dismissed Roy and this is can be used against Gary in the employment tribunal as it is a violation of the ERA (1996) S. 92(1). He was entitled to that letter and thus he should have been given before being dismissed so as to prove that the employer had nothing to hide. The fact that he even did not sign in for any settlement agreements means that he was free to make any claim since he was not restricted by law under S. 203 (1). Thus Roy had a strong case against Gary since he failed to follow the lawful procedure of dismissing Roy.

    There was no reasonable reason as to why Ron was fired in relation to the circumstances. This is because the director failed to make a fair decision regarding the issue. As a legal advisor, I would advise Gary to first acknowledge that there was a case between him and the employer. Considering all the issues and facts of the claim it is evident that Ron had the right to make a claim but on the other hand, the issue is whether he was dismissed unjustly or justly? According to the same law on ERA S. 98(123) the fair reasons as to why an employee can be dismissed can either be due to misconduct or qualification problems or other considerable reasons (BELL 2006). However, Ron was at fault in this case since he used the business card to fuel another car instead of one car that is registered with the card. He also used the card to fuel the car two times instead of one time per day. Investigating the issue the company identified that this was a repeated misconduct as he had done this in the past. He thus broke the employment contract basing on trust and confidence. More so he breached the code of honesty. Gary and his company had not only tried in making investigations as they had looked into the records related to the misconduct carried out by Ron but they had also come up with a report on the same. However, Gary is likely to lose the case since the dismissal was unreasonable as it did not follow the ACA procedure. A Buzolli v Food Partners Ltd EAT 0317/12 is the similar case that was ruled to have a fair dismissal though they failed to comply with the ACAS code. Ron was not given a chance to appeal to the claims against him as he should have been given a chance to hearing before being dismissed. The process is important as it allows for a two-way decision and agreement on dismissal but this was only one sided and thus it would make it hard for Gary to win the case.

Conclusion

    It is thus evident that though the dismissal is unfair in regards to the procedural grounds alone, a tribunal will be able to reduce the compensation that would be payable to reveal the possibility that the dismissal would have gone on anyway even if a reasonable procedure was followed. The tribunal therefore not only looks on a partial process but rather the entire process of dismissal. Thus the case between Gary and Ron clearly indicates that misconduct is a serious offense that can affect the relationship between the employer and the employee thus making continuance impossible. Thus if Gary had followed all the rightful procedure he should have won the case since his dismissal action or decision was fair. However, Ron had a strong case against Gary as he was not given notice or rather a warning before his dismissal even though he was at fault thus the employment tribunal may rule the case in his favor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

BELL, A. C. (2006). Employment law: textbook series. London, Sweet & Maxwell.

Buzolli v Food Partners Ltd UKEAT/0317/12/KN

DUNCAN, N., EADY, J., HUNGERFORD-WELCH, P., NAG, S., SPRACK, J., & BROWNE, J. (2016). Employment law in practice.