Unfair Dismissal In Employment Law: The Milldam Brewery Case Study

This coursework covers the following learning outcomes:

1.Demonstrate a detailed knowledge of the law and practice in key area of employment law and ;

2.Recognise, understand and apply appropriate case law and legislation to realistic business problem scenarios;

3.Critically evaluate the law of employment.

The issue of this case study is related to an unfair dismissal of an employee.

The term unfair dismissal is used to define the actions of an employer while terminating an employer’s activities while terminating the employee’s employment in respect to the requirements of the Business and Employment Law. In the process of wrong dismissal of an employee, a notice needs to be served to the employee where the employee is bound to produce a notice as per the employment contract. Such individual employment rights are essential in the approach of the government and the labor market. According to the Business and Employment Law, if any employee is dismissed, he or she will have a few specific rights that can be exercised and therefore appeals can be made to an employment tribunal that will decide the methods of dismissal and the outcome of the appeal. An employee can be terminated or dismissed based on disciplinary issues but the company or the employer must provide a notice to the employee. As per the Business and Employment Law, a dismissal can either be lawful or wrongful. It includes the engagement of discrimination under statute. Milldam Brewery will be liable potentially to Olaf for unfair dismissal. Unfair dismissal is different from the concept of constructive dismissal. The dismissal of an employee can be unfair if the employer does not have a good reason for dismissing the employee and follows the company’s process of dismissal. Therefore, if an employee is threatened with dismissal or dismissed completely, he can achieve help from a third party to resolve the situation with conciliation and arbitration. Business and Employment Law discusses the circumstances in which an employee can be dismissed. The employer with or without notice terminates the contract under which he or she is dismissed by the employer. The employee can terminate the contract under which he is employed in circumstances where he is entitled to terminate it without notice by reason of the conduct of the employer. As per the Business and Employment Law, an employee who has been dismissed on unfair means will take into account the reason for the dismissal is that the employee was being redundant. Secondly, if certain circumstances form the redundancy then it will be applicable to one or other employees in the same undertaking.

An employer of the company dismissed Olaf, a member of the Milldam Brewery (MB) in an unfair manner. As per the case study, Olaf was the head brewer of the Milldam Brewery Company situated in Portsmouth. One fine morning, an employee cannot be  dismissed because the employer feels that he has gone against the disciplinary rules. The Director of a company generally takes the decision of terminating an employee based on disciplinary issues. In this given case study, it can be observed that Preeti was the new line manager of Olaf and therefore she took all the decisions related to the brewery. They had arguments as well but due to his behavior towards Preeti she got offended and decided on dismissing Olaf. Olaf defended himself by stating that Preeti was too interfering in his work despite knowing that he had an experience of 40 years. In United Kingdom, unfair dismissal is a parcel of the UK labor law that needs reasonable and fair treatment by employers in situations where a person’s job could be dismissed. However, the activity of Preeti towards Olaf was strictly unfair and hence he can appeal with the help of the Equality Act 2010. There is no such statutory provision for this and therefore it will result in ordinary discrimination. He has been serving this company for a period of 15 years. For an extension and making the business more competitive, the MB Company hired another knew manager named Preeti. Soon after, she was made the new line manager of Olaf. However, they started having clashes and arguments at the workplace. Both of them had different opinions and wanted to amend separate changes in the brewery. An argument broke between the two and harsh comments were exchanged. Therefore, Olaf can therefore apply the law of arbitration and conciliation against the Milldam Brewery or directly to Preeti. One can also approach employment tribunals if they are unable to solve their problems with the help of conciliation and arbitration. Milldam Brewery is liable potentially to Olaf as he got dismissed by Preeti in an unfair manner. A meeting was arranged the next day since such a situation arose. Preeti put allegations on Olaf and when he was given a chance to defend himself, he stated that he was pushed too far and was being interrupted by Preeti. However, Preeti took the decision of dismissing Olaf at that very moment for gross misconduct. Therefore, by applying the case study, Olaf was not dismissed due to any health or safety issues. Olaf was dismissed by Preeti by giving disciplinary issues. Dismissal of Olaf will not be considered Preeti served a justified one as no notice to him. In a meeting, an employer does not have the power to terminate an employee’s work duration. However, due to the actions and decisions of Preeti, Milldam Brewery will have the potential liability to Olaf in unfair dismissal. Potential liability arises in a principal and agent relationship. A potential liability occurs depending on the result of an uncertain event of the future. As per the Labor Relations Act, if an unfair act is constituted, one must take legal actions against the employer. An employee can file a complaint to the Labor Relations Committee within 60 days of the violation.

The Issue of Unfair Dismissal

The issue is in order to advise MB about the possible claims that can be made against them by Preeti, Dave and Steve and what can be the potential remedies.

The Equality Act, 2010 will be applicable for providing remedies and protecting people legally. The purpose and aim of this act is to protect individuals from discrimination in workplace and the society. This particular act has replaced the laws of anti-discrimination with this single act. Every individual working in an undertaking must be treated equally despite their sex, caste, religion and creed. The Equality and Human Rights Commission is set up as a statutory body determined to help reduce. In this scenario, there was a scope of racial discrimination while hiring new employees. Generally, in the discrimination issues, claims should be filed within three months of the occurrence of the discrimination activities taking place. Such employment claims are filed in an Employment Tribunal. In case of an claim of unfair dismissal, the time period would be three months from the day the employee got dismissed. Generally, there is no such general discretion for an Employment Tribunal for them to extend time regarding filing a claim. As per this Act, the law states that no individual should be differentiated based on their sex, religion, color and creed. When an individual has faced unlawful discrimination at a workplace, the employee must file a complaint under the Equality Act. A discrimination claim is made under the County Court. Relating to this scenario, a claim can be filed by Preeti, Dave and Steve against the Milldam Brewery Company for discriminating the employees unreasonably. Equality Act has stated laws that are against the process of indiscrimination among employees in an organization.  Discrimination can be both direct and indirect. Both the ways are applied while discriminating an employee thereafter. Adler v George (1964) discussed about the racial origin that have been an issue for an employee in an undertaking. A claim for discrimination under the Equality Act is when an individual or a group of individuals are treated in a distinguished way due to their actual membership of a particular group. Therefore, workers are kept protected from being subjected to such behavior under the Equality Act, 2010. However, there are remedies that are available under this specific act. Firstly, compensation for injury to feelings caused to individuals. Discriminating any individual based on their color will naturally hurt their sentiment and feelings. Secondly, the damages that are stretched will exceptionally upset the individuals because the claimant has been treated in a domineering way. Thirdly, discrimination can damage the health of individuals. For example, when a Claimant has suffered from some kind of psychological trauma because of discrimination. Thereafter, one can try and make a claim for damages to health. Lastly, there are exemplary damages where individuals are awarded to punish serious crimes in particular. Exemplary damages are the punitive ones and are usually awarded where the court regards that an award of compensatory as observed in the case of Ratcliff v McConnell [1999]. Therefore, such damages are awarded in the cases of discrimination. There have been developments in the Equality Act 2010 recently. As per Section 124(3) of the Equality Act, 2010, it extends the power to make certain recommendations in respect of the complainant and any other person. Such development can help the claimant to receive remedies and compensations. The remedies made in discrimination cases are generally comprised of the compensation for the injuries to feelings. The compensation amount depends on the nature of the cases. Therefore, the Act harmonizes the present legislation for providing Britain with a new discrimination law that protects the individuals from getting unfair treatment and promotes for a fair and equal society. The employer is generally held liable for the acts of discrimination in the workplace. Although individual employees can be held liable if they have been subjected to any colleague to harassment.

Disciplinary Issues and Dismissal

In this given scenario, it was observed that Preeti received hostile behavior from four young men who used to work in the same undertaking. They behaved like this with Preeti because of how she treated Olaf. She heard them saying jokes on about her ethnic wear and the color of her skin. Preeti also got harassed when those four young men asked her to get out indirectly by writing it with chalk on the brewery wall near her car. After witnessing such incidents, Preeti complains it to the senior employees and the owners. No action was taken to resolve the problem of Preeti. For the recruitment of the head brewer at Milldam Brewery, three candidates had applied. The first candidate was Dave who had a degree in the business management and an experience of 7 years of making beer. The second candidate was Steve who was experienced for 3 years and the last candidate was James, who had an experience of 3 years in a large brewery. Everyone performed well in the interview. Thereafter, in the end, Preeti hired James as he was black and she was tired of working in a company with only white men. Milldam Brewery Company will have to give claims that could be made against Preeti, Steve and Dave. If the employer is liable for the activities of the employees and the agents, they will also be held liable personally. As per the Equality Act, 2010, if more than one person is liable for compensation, the claimant will not be concerned with any issues of how liability is apportioned between them.  However, the Milldam Brewing Company will be held responsible for claims made against it by Preeti, Dave and Steve. Preeti being the employee can claim for compensation as she was discriminated based on her complexion. The employees mentioned above, Dave and Steve were discriminated and not hired by the company based on their color. However, all of them can ask for compensation from the Milldam Brewing Company. Equality Act, 2010 will provide such individuals every opportunity for taking action against the company since  it has hurt their feelings. The potential remedies, which Milldam Brewing Company can provide is by giving compensation to the injured employees of their company.

Conclusion

In this regard, it can be concluded stating that in case of discrimination, the claim must be brought into notice within a period of three months if actions needs to be taken.

References:

Ashcroft, John, and Nilushi Ratnayaka. "The Equality Act 2010 in mental health." (2014): 256-256.

Authority, Scottish Qualifications. "Section 96 (7) Equality Act 2010." (2017).

Bowers, John, and Jeremy Lewis. "Whistling for Dismissal and Detriment Remedies: Royal Mail Ltd v Jhuti." Industrial Law Journal 47.1 (2018): 121-134.

Catto, Rebecca, and David Perfect. "Religious literacy, equalities and human rights." Religious Literacy in Policy and Practice (2015): 135-163.

Collins, Philippa. "The Inadequate Protection of Human Rights in Unfair Dismissal Law." Industrial Law Journal (2017).

Corby, Susan, Laura William, and Sarah Richard. "Combatting disability discrimination: A comparison of France and Great Britain." European Journal of Industrial Relations (2018): 0959680118759169.

Davidov, Guy, and Edo Eshet. "Intermediate approaches to unfair dismissal protection." Industrial Law Journal 44.2 (2015): 167-193.

Davies, Chantal, et al. "The Equality Act 2010: Five years on." (2016): 61-65.

Fredman, Sandra. "Addressing disparate impact: Indirect discrimination and the public sector equality duty." Industrial Law Journal 43.3 (2014): 349-363.

Grimshaw, Damian, et al. "The governance of employment protection in the UK: how the state and employers are undermining decent standards." Myths of employment deregulation: how it neither creates jobs nor reduces labour market segmentation (2017): 225.

Hand, James, Bernard Davis, and Charles Barker. "The British Equality Act 2010 and the foundations of legal knowledge." Commonwealth Law Bulletin 41.1 (2015): 3-28.

Hepple, Bob. Equality: The Legal Framework. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014.

Lane, Jackie A., and Rachel Ingleby. "Indirect Discrimination, Justification and Proportionality: Are UK Claimants at a Disadvantage?." Industrial Law Journal (2017).

McKay, Sonia. "A right not to be discriminated against: The origins and evolution of discrimination law." Gower handbook of discrimination at work. Routledge, 2016. 35-46.

Thompson, Neil. Anti-discriminatory practice: Equality, diversity and social justice. Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.

Vickers, Lucy. Religious freedom, religious discrimination and the workplace. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016.

Adler v George (1964) 2 QB 7 (QBD)

Ratcliff v McConnell [1999] 1 WLR 670