This paper will be analyzing the matter of Anton (security officer) vs. Christine (the manager) and the termination of employment for Anton. The rights of the employee as well as the employer will be considered in deciding the legal outcome of the case. The Employment Rights Act 1996 outlines the rights of both employees and employers precisely identifying the procedure and the party responsible for the provision of the necessary documentation. It defines the standards of reasonable dismissal and sets out a procedure in relation to the court and the employment tribunal. The evidence will be considered to establish whether there was sufficient reason for the dismissal and if the employer took the necessary steps to warn or notify the employee of the policy violation.
Also, an investigation will take place in relation to the actions of the employee and if the filing of the claim was reasonable or not.
The Employment Rights Act 1996, Section 94 states that a person has a right not to be unreasonably terminated and section 95 gives an explanation of the conditions that would constitute reasonable or unreasonable termination.
According to Section 230 of ERA, a person is considered an employee once they were hired and have worked under a contract. As stated in the case, Anton has worked in the company for the duration of three years and this is without a doubt considered an employee able to exercise full rights.
When at the start of his shift Anton was met by Christine he was told that: “he is not suited for the job” and he should “leave his uniform and get out now.” This can be qualified as dismissal from work. Section 95 (1a) states that the termination itself could take place without any prior notice. The manager verbally communicated to the employee that their services are no longer required. The terminology that was used by Christine is clear and without any ambiguities and so it would be impossible to understand the meaning of her words in any other way except as a dismissal. Section 97 (1) (b) determines that the termination comes into effect on the day it was issued. If no prior notice was given then it is effective at the time of the verbal dismissal.
Section 86 (1) of the ERA clearly outlines that an employee must be notified of his termination one week prior. As this was not done by the manager—Christine, the termination is, without doubt, unfair since the employee’s rights were violated. It is the manager’s responsibility to provide all the legal paperwork for the employee clearly stating the reasons for the termination, as well as providing evidence that led to the termination. Christine did not contact any witnesses or other staff members to gather evidence pertaining to the case and thus had no proper documentation to proceed with the dismissal. As mentioned above there are sometimes extraneous circumstances that allow no prior notice but considering the information available from the case, it is evident that there were no sufficient reasons to terminate without any notice.
The applicant—Anton, as mentioned previously is legally an employee of the company due to the three years that he has worked there. All the rights under ERA fully apply and give him the right to proceed with a grievance as his dismissal was unfair and unreasonable under the Act.
What determines the termination and the acts of the employer as reasonable or not, is listed in section 98 (1) of the ERA, the onus is on the employer to show and prove that there were substantial reasons for the termination. In addition, the employer has to justify dismissal without any written warning or other documentation that is required by the Act.
Christine did not provide any such evidence that relates to the “unacceptable” conduct of Anton and so it is established that the employer acted unreasonably.
Judging by the evidence and prior examination of the case it is reasonable to conclude that the termination of Anton was based on the emotion and influence of individuals that were involved in the incident that prompted the dismissal of an employee.
As established, it is the manager’s responsibility to provide all the evidence for the dismissal to the employment tribunal.
Witnesses’ testimony that was present at the time of the incident, statements from the employees on a shift, as well as the statement from the person who filed the complaint, are necessary to prove that the dismissal was fair and justified.
Another important fact to consider is the amount of retribution in the matter and its change in relation to the outcome of the case based on the ACAS Code of Practice.
If the court decides that the reasons for dismissal were reasonable and no prior notice was required, the complainant—Anton, might receive a deduction in the amount of 25% from the compensation that he was offered. In a case when the court determines that the termination was unfair, in addition to the absence of any evidence or any reasonable circumstances, it is in the court’s power to increase employee’s compensation by 25%.
References
United Kingdom 1996, Employment Rights Act 1996, viewed 2 November 2012, via UK Government Legislation Online database.