Securing Higher Grades Costing Your Pocket? Book Your Assignment at The Lowest Price Now!
loader
Add File

Error goes here

Files Missing!

Please upload all relevant files for quick & complete assistance.

Guaranteed Higher Grade!

Stuck on Your Question?

Get 24x7 live help from our Top Tutors. All subjects covered.

loader
250 words

Error goes here

Files Missing!

Please upload all relevant files for quick & complete assistance.

Students Who Viewed This Also Studied

3 Pages
BLM3013 Business Law

there are 2 parts to this assgnment. one is to draft letter Prepare a draft letter to client (no more than 2 pages long) advising on : ? The requirements and procedure to be taken in order to obtain a ...

Course

BLM3013

Type

Essay

Subject

Business Law

University

Singapore University of Social Sciences

8 Pages
ISOL 633 Legal Regulations, Investigation and Compliance

Task: At UC, it is a priority that students are provided with strong educational programs and courses that allow them to be servant-leaders in their disciplines and communities, linking research with ...

Course

ISOL 633

Type

Essay

Subject

Business Law

University

University of the Cumberlands

13 Pages
ACBUS201A Commercial Law

Task: Required: Based on the above information and your knowledge of Australian contract and consumer law, answer the following questions. 1. Outline and describe any legal contractual issues in rel ...

Course

ACBUS201A

Type

Assignment

Subject

Business Law

University

Tafe NSW

261 Pages
Defu Furniture Pte Ltd

Defu F urn itu re P te L td v RBC P ro pertie s P te L td [2 014] S G HC 1 C ase N um ber : Suit N o 7 26 o f 2 011 D ecis io n D ate : 02 J a nuary 2 014 T rib unal/ C ourt : Hig h C o ...

Course

LGST101

Subject

Business Law

University

Singapore Management University

Season

Fall

Fictionville Employment Tribunal

Question

Answered

IN THE FICTIONVILLE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL CASE NUMBER: 12345/2021 BETWEEN: - MRS NISREEN SABIR Claimant and WBSL(UK) Limited Respondent JUDGEMENT Issues to be Discussed in the Case It has been agreed by the parties that the issues state below must be determined by the concerned Tribunal: - 1) Whether the Claimant possess the right of claiming ‘unfair dismissal’ against respondent explicitly, whether the Claimant was an employee in connection to the Respondent? 2) If the Claimant is an employee in connection to the Respondent, then whether any fair reason existed based on which the Respondent dismissed the Claimant? 3) Whether the Respondent acted in a reasonable manner in treating such reason as a specific reason in connection to the termination o f Claimant? 4) Whether the Respondent gave effect to a reasonable inquiry in relation to the conduct of the Claimant? 5) Whether the Respondent have any reasonable and genuine belief that the specific Claimant was actually guilty of the alleged misconduct? 6) Whet her the dismissal was within the group of reasonable and sensible responses that were open to Respondent? 7) If any failure is made in connection to the procedure, then whether such alleged failure in connection to the procedure would be adequate enough to re nder the termination or dismissal unfair; or whether the Respondent will be able to demonstrate that the termination or dismissal of Claimant would actually have happened in any event? 8) Whether the Claimant actually made contribution to her own termination or dismissal because of her blameworthy or/and culpable conduct (s. 123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996 1)? Whether the Claimant has been unsuccessful in following the ‘ACAS Code of Practice’? 9) Whether the Respondent has been unsuccessful in following the ‘ACA S Code of Practice’? 10) In either case, whether any such particular failure was unreasonable, and if it was actually unreasonable, then whether an uplift or a decrease in the compensation should be awarded as per s.207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 2? 11) Whether the Claimant would have the entitlement in relation to any compensation, and if such entitlement actually exists, then to what degree? 12) Whether the Claimant has given effect to reasonable steps for mitigating her loss? Facts In the forwarded case, the claimant is Mrs. Nisreen Sabir and the respondent is WBSL (UK) Limited. On the 30 th day of the month of June in the year of 2018, an agreement has been established amid Nisreen (the claimant) and WBSL (UK) Limited (the resp ondent). As 1 Employment Rights Act , 1996 . 2 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act , 1992 . per the contract of employment amid Nisreen and WBSL, there was a fixed payment of wages, the hours regarding the work have been decided, holidays grants have been forwarded. WBSL also forwarded a pension scheme in favour of Nisreen. All paymen ts in connection to the tax as well as national insurance were made by WBSL. Nisreen suffered from depression subsequent to the demise of her mother. And her depression increases when she was dismissed by WBSL. The respondent stated that the claimant had b een notified in a proper manner several times prior to dismissing her. A discussion was held by the respondent with the claimant regarding her nonattendances and she was informed concerning the possibility of dismissal or termination if she failed to maint ain the required improved attendance, in accordance to the ‘absence management policy’ of the respondent. The respondent specified that even after such discussions and warnings, the claimant was constantly absent from work. Legal Principles Employee or Independent Contractor Section 230(3) as provided in the Employment Rights Act of 1996 3, describes a worker as a person who has established or continues to work as per (or, in case where such employment has been terminated, worked as per) - (a) a specific contract relating to employment, or (b) any specific contract, whether implied or express, and (if such contract is in express form) then whether in writing or oral, whereby such person accepts to perform or do personally any service or work for any other party involved in the contract (whose position is actually not that of any client or any customer through the contract). The primogenital or original test in connection to the status of an employee can be said to be that of ‘control’. In this regard, the case, which is known as Yewen v Noakes (1880 - 3 Employment Rights Act, 1996. 81) L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 530 4, should be considered, given its significance in relation to this particular instance. In the above said significant case, it was deliberated that as per the control test, it is asked tha t whether the particular servant is actually subjected to the command or will of the particular master in connection to the manner in which the work should be carried out. However, several problems exist with the control test. The first is that it came int o being in the 19th century where the test was used to separate manual employees from professional ones. Thus, a rigid modern -day application could result in the denial of employee status to professionals. The case, which is cited to be Lane v Shire Roofin g [1995] I.R.L.R. 493 5, must be considered in association to the given situation. In this vital case, it had been specified that a degree a personal supervision and direction is actually implied by the control test, which is no longer exists in the modern day or contemporary labour relations. Nonetheless, it continues to be a regular characteristic in determining the status of any employment. A second test would be the test relating to integration. This test depends upon the manner in which the work of an individual is integrated into the organization. The primary objective of this test is also to determine as to whether the worker shall be considered to be an independent contractor or an employee. In connection to the integration test, the case, which is quoted as Stevenson Jordan & Harrison v McDonnell & Evans [1952] 1 T.L.R. 101 6, shall be deliberated due to the pertinence of this case in regard to this scenario. In the above said case, it had been said that a person would be regarded to be an independen t contractor and not an employee, if the work of this person is not entirely integrated or incorporated into the organization, but is just an accessory or addition to the organization. It should be said that this particular test is barely utilized in the p resent day and plausibly so. This particular test fails instantly when it actually encounters the big, longwinded organizations that are productive in the contemporary economy. For instance, if this test is considered than it might propose that a 4 Yewen v Noakes (1880 -81) L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 530 . 5 Lane v Shire Roofing [1995] I.R.L.R. 493 . 6 Stevenson Jordan & Harrison v McDonnell & Evans [1952] 1 T.L.R. 101 . ‘cleaner’ who is employed by a public library shall not be considered to be an employee merely because the work of such ‘cleaner’ was just an ‘accessory’ in relation to the main activities of the public library. Another specific test that has been unsuccessful in being articulated or expressed with any clearness and simplicity would be the ‘economic reality’ test. This specific test mandates the courts to inspect and scrutinize the risks that are actually borne by the employee and the employer. If the risk that is borne by a person is more, then it shall be less likely that such person is an employee because the employer customarily bears any kind of risk relating to failure. This specific test shall not be deliberated any further as this specific test does not play any important function in connection to the modern -day tests relating to employment status. Presently, the test relating to ‘mutuality of obligation’ can be said to be the conclusive test relating to the determination of the employment status of any indi vidual. In the absence of ‘mutuality of obligation’, it is not possible for an employment relation to exist. It must be mentioned that two vital elements are present in connection to this specific test. The first one is the prerequisite for a relation wher e labour is provided in exchange for wage or pay. The second one is that an ongoing obligation shall exist upon the specific employer to make provision of work, and an equivalent obligation shall also exist upon the specific employee to undertake or accept work. In this regard, the case cited to be Carmichael v National Power plc [1999] UKHL 47 7 must be deliberated because of the vitality of the case. In this particular case, the test relating to ‘mutuality of obligation’ was applied. It was specified that ‘mutuality of obligation’ did not exist in connection to the casual staffs or workers. When work was offered to such staffs or workers, they were requested to sign a specific statement, which detailed that employment was being offered to them that would be as casual as mandatory. It was held by the court that such staffs or workers shall not be considered to be employees 7 Carmichael v National Power plc [1999] UKHL 47 . (rather should be considered to be independent contractors) because of their status ‘as casual as mandatory’. However, presently, two ki nds of workers may come within the ‘Grey Zone’. In modern times, there is a swelling group of persons who are performing regular (and at certain times) challenging work, yet are not considered as employees. The 2 most vital groups are the casual workers an d the agency worker. An instance of the casual worker can be seen in the case of Carmichael v National Power plc 8 (as discussed above). Another significant case in relation to the casual worker is the case of O’Kelly v Trusthouse Forte plc [1983] I.R.L.R. 369 9. In this particular case, the claimants (who worked more hours in comparison to the ones who were truly employed by the organization) argued that they should be considered as employees. It was decided that they could not claim the emp loyee status because there was no ‘mutuality of obligation’. In the absence of any mutual obligation to deliver and accept work, any specific contract cannot be considered as a contract relating to employment. The issue relating to the agency workers is a much more disturbed segment of employment law. The early common law made an effort to provide protection in respect of the agency workers by establishing an employment relation amid the agency and the worker. However, recently, there have been certain ca ses where the employee status has not been provided to the agency workers. The case of Bunce v Postworth [2005] I.R.L.R. 557 10 can be said to be such as case. In this specific case, it was acknowledged that the dearth of control as well as the dearth of mut ual obligation in relation to the agency workers restricts them from being granted an employee status. Unfair Dismissal Eligibility 8 Carmic hael v National Power plc [1999] UKHL 47 . 9 O’Kelly v Trusthouse Forte plc [1983] I.R.L.R. 369 . 10 Bunce v Postworth [2005] I.R.L.R. 557 . According to section 108 (1) as provided in the Employment Rights Act of 1996 11, in order to be eligible for claiming unfair dismissal, an individual should be employed for not less than a period of two years, except certain exclusions, which includes if the specific reason in connection to the dismissal is inevitably and automatically unfair. Certain classifications of employee will not be able to claim for an ‘Unfair Dismissal’, and such employees include the police, share fisherman and certain employees of the Crown where the pertinent minister has forwarded an excluding certificate due to matters concerning national s ecurity. The case of Lawson v Serco Ltd [2006] UKHL 3 12 should be deliberated in connection to the given instance. In the above said case, it was held that the employees who are working outside United Kingdom, shall only be protected against any case of unf air dismissal, if the work of such employees has strong influences in connection to Great Britain. It should be noted that the burden would be upon the employee to give effect to the right to ‘claim’. Dismissal The specific employee should have been dis charged or dismissed, that is, the contract, which is entered into by the employee, has been terminated as per the meaning forwarded in section 95 of Employment Rights Act 13. In this regard, the burden or onus of proof shall be upon the employee. As per section 95(1) of the Employment Rights Act 14, where any specific contract has been terminated by employer, either without notice or with notice, the meaning in relation to the words utilized must be analysed and whether the words meant that such employee ha d 11 Employment Rights Act, 1996. 12 Lawson v Serco Ltd [2006] UKHL 3 . 13 Employment Rights Act, 1996. 14 Ibid . actually been dismissed. In the case Tanner v Kean [1978] IRLR 160 15, it was held that the words of the employer meant that the employee had been dismissed. On the contrary, in the case Futty v P & D Brekkes Ltd [1974] IRLR 130 16, it was held that the wor ds of the employer did not result in the dismissal of the employer. Fair reasons After the employee is able to prove that he or she has actually been dismissed, the onus or burden shall be upon the employer to demonstrate, in the first instance, the reas ons relating to such dismissal, and in the second instance, that such reason comes under a specific category relating to fair reason as provided in section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 17. As per section 98, the possibly fair reasons are qualification or capability, conduct , redundancy, continuous employment would cause a violation of the statute , or any other significant reason justifying or validating the dismissal. According to section 98 (2) (a) of ERA 18, a dismissal shall be considered to be fair and just if it is in relation to the qualifications or capability of an employee regarding the concerned the job. In connection to the issue relating to capability or qualification, the case known as Davison v K ent Meters [1975] IRLR 145 19 must be considered. In this specific case, it had been mentioned that while dismissing any employee on the grounds of incompetence, one must always consider as to whether a proper training had been provided or not. It was specif ied that it might be fair and just to dismiss or terminate any employee who has been unsuccessful in adapting to new skill or technology, however, such employee should be provided with the opportunity and scope to learn and study, and it might be reasonabl e to give any other post for any particular employee who is unable to adapt. In another pertinent 15 Tanner v Kean [1978] IRLR 160 . 16 Futty v P & D Brekkes Ltd [1974] IRLR 130 . 17 Employment Rights Act, 1996. 18 Ibid . 19 Davison v Kent Meters [1975] IRLR 145 . case known as Taylor v Alidair Ltd [1978] IRLR 82 20, it had been deliberated that whenever any individual is actually dismissed on the grounds of incompetence or incapacity, it would be adequate enough that the particular employer honestly and fairly believes (upon reasonable grounds) that such individual is actually incompetent or incapable. It would not be mandatory for the particular employer to actually prov e that he or she is incompetent or incapable. In case of misconduct of an employee, while evaluating the misconduct, the tribunals and the courts should consider the ‘ACAS Code of Practice’ of 2015 concerning the ‘Discipline and Grievance Procedures’ 21. It is mandated by the ACAS Code that the particular rules relating to natural justice must be observed, which means that the employees must be provided with an advance notice regarding any disciplinary hearing; should be provided with the opportunity and sco pe of being heard by any individual who is not actually involved in the concerned matter; should be informed prior to the allegations are actually made against them; and should be provided with the opportunity to contest them, before any kind of decision i s made. In connection to the issue relating to misconduct of an employee, the famous case cited to be British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell | [1980] ICR 303 22 should be forwarded. In this famous case, it had been specified that absolute proof or evidence relat ing to misconduct would not be necessary. If the particular employer sincerely and honestly believes that the suspect is actually guilty of the misconduct, if the grounds relating to the belief of the employer are actually reasonable, and if the particular employer has given effect to a sufficient investigation in connection to the facts (in a reasonable manner), then it would be enough. This specific ruling had been conformed in the case of Weddel & Co v Tepper [1980] IRLR 96 23. Another pertinent case conce rning the given scenario is the case of Airbus 20 Taylor v Alidair Ltd [1978] IRLR 82 . 21 ACAS Code of Practice 2015 . 22 British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell | [1980] ICR 303 . 23 Weddel & Co v Tepper [1980] IRLR 96 . UK Limited v Webb [2008] EWCA Civ 49 24. In this pertinent case, it was said that the employee performed an activity that gave rise to gross misconduct, and in relation to such gross misconduct, dismissal would be considered to be inside the assortment of the reasonable responses irrespective of any warning was give or not in connection to such misconduct. Where any kind of warning would not make any kind of difference in relation to the conduct of an employee, t hen in such situation it might be considered to be fair and just to dismiss the employee in the absence of such warning. The case known as Smith v Glasgow City District Council [1987] ICR 796 25 must be considered in association to the given scenario becaus e of its significance. In this significant case, it had been held that a dismissal would be considered to be unfair because of an unsubstantiated or uncorroborated allegation against the specific employee. It was specified that it shall not be regarded as fair and just to dismiss an employee because of any unsubstantiated or uncorroborated reason. It must be noted that whether any decision in relation to a dismissal would be fair or not shall be a question relating to fact and definitely not law. This was confirmed in the case of Piggott Bros and Co Ltd v. Jackson and Ors (1991) IRLR 309 26. Legal Pr inciples Applied to the Case Employee or Independent Contractor Applying section 230(3) of Employment Rights Act of 1996 27, Nisreen should be regarded as a worker she continued to work as per (or, in case where such employment has been terminated, worked as per) - (a) a specific contract relating to employment. Yewen v Noakes (1880 -81) L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 530 28, should be applied, given its significance in relation to this particular instance. Applying the above said significant case, it 24 Airbus UK Limited v Webb [2008] EWCA Civ 49 . 25 Smith v Glasgow City District Council [1987] ICR 796 . 26 Piggott Bros and Co Ltd v. Jackson and Ors (1991) IRLR 309 . 27 Employment Rights Act, 1996. 28 Yewen v Noakes (1880 -81) L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 530 . can be deliberated that as per the control test, Nisreen was actually subjected to the command or will of the WBSL in connection to the manner in which she performed the work. However, many problems exist in relation to the control test. The first is that it came into being in the 19th century where the test was used to separate manual employees from professional ones. Thus, a rigid modern -day application cou ld result in the denial of employee status to professionals. The case, which is cited to be Lane v Shire Roofing [1995] I.R.L.R. 493 29, must be applied in association to the given situation. Applying this vital case, it can be specified that a degree a pers onal supervision and direction is actually implied by the control test, which is no longer exists in the modern day or contemporary labour relations. Nonetheless, it continues to be a regular characteristic in determining the status of any employment. In connection to the integration test, the case, which is quoted as Stevenson Jordan & Harrison v McDonnell & Evans [1952] 1 T.L.R. 101 30, shall be applied due to the pertinence of this case in regard to this scenario. Applying the above said case, it can be s aid that Nisreen would be regarded to be an employee, because the work of Nisreen was entirely integrated or incorporated into the organization, and was not just an accessory or addition to the organization. Although, it should be said that this particular test is barely utilized in the present day and plausibly so. This particular test fails instantly when it actually encounters the big, longwinded organizations that are productive in the contemporary economy. Another specific test that has been unsucces sful in being articulated or expressed with any clearness and simplicity would be the ‘economic reality’ test. This specific test mandates the courts to inspect and scrutinize the risks that are actually borne by the employee and the employer. If the risk that is borne by a person is more, then it shall be less likely that such person is an employee because the employer customarily bears any kind of risk relating to failure. This specific test shall not be deliberated any further as this specific test does not play 29 Lane v Shire Roofing [1995] I.R.L.R. 493 . 30 Stevenson Jordan & Harrison v McDonnell & Evans [1952] 1 T.L.R. 101 . any important function in connection to the modern -day tests relating to employment status. Presently, the test relating to ‘mutuality of obligation’ can be said to be the conclusive test relating to the determination of the employment status of any individual. It should be said that in the absence of ‘mutuality of obligation’, it is not possible for an employment relation to exist. In Nisreen’s case two vital elements of ‘mutuality of obligation’ were present. The first one was the prerequisite f or a relation where Nisreen had been provided in exchange for wage or pay. The second one was that an ongoing obligation exist upon WBSL to make provision of work, and an equivalent obligation also exist upon Nisreen to undertake or accept work. In this re gard, the case cited to be Carmichael v National Power plc [1999] UKHL 47 31 must be applied because of the vitality of the case. Applying this particular case, it can be specified that ‘mutuality of obligation’ exist in connection to Nisreen. Nisreen does not come within the ‘Grey Zone’. In modern times, there is a swelling group of persons who are performing regular (and at certain times) challenging work, yet are not considered as employees. The 2 most vital groups are the casual workers and the agency worker. An instance of the casual worker can be seen in the case of Carmichael v National Power plc 32 (as discussed above). Another significant case in relation to the casual worker is the case of O’Kelly v Trusthouse Forte plc [1983] I.R.L.R. 369 33. Applying this particular case, Nisreen would be able to claim the employee status because there had been ‘mutuality of obligation’. Nisreen is not an agency worker. Hence, the conception relating to agency workers shall be applicable in case of Nisreen. Theref ore, considering the cases and rules discussed and applied above, it can be said that Nisreen would be regarded as an employee and not as an independent contractor. Unfair Dismissal 31 Carmichael v National Power plc [1999] UKHL 47 . 32 Ibid . 33 O’Kelly v Trusthouse Forte plc [1983] I.R.L.R. 369 . Eligibility Applying section 108 (1) as provided in the Employment Rights Act of 1996 34, Nisreen, in order to be eligible for claiming unfair dismissal, should be employed for not less than a period of two years, except certain exclusions, which includes if the specific reason in connection to the dismissal is inevitably and aut omatically unfair. Therefore, in this regard, Nisreen shall be eligible as she worked for more than 3 years at WBSL. Nisreen does not fall within the classifications of employee who would not be able to claim for an ‘Unfair Dismissal’, such as the police, share fisherman and certain employees of the Crown where the pertinent minister has forwarded an excluding certificate due t o matters concerning national security. The case of Lawson v Serco Ltd [2006] UKHL 3 35 should be applied in connection to the given instance. Making application of the above said case, it should be said that the employees who are working outside United King dom, shall only be protected against any case of unfair dismissal, if the work of such employees has strong influences in connection to Great Britain. It should be noted that the burden would be upon Nisreen to give effect to the right to ‘claim’. Dismissal Nisreen has been discharged or dismissed, that is, the contract, which is entered into by her, has been terminated as per the meaning forwarded in section 95 of Employment Rights Act 36. In this regard, the burden or onus of proof shall be upon W BSL. Applying section 95(1) of the Employment Rights Act 37, the contract of Nisreen relating to employment has been terminated by WBSL, with notice, and the words of the WBSL meant that Nisreen had actually been dismissed. 34 Employment Rights Act, 1996. 35 Lawson v Serco Ltd [2006] UKHL 3 . 36 Employment Rights Act, 1996. 37 Ibid . Fair reasons After the Nisree n is able to prove that she has actually been dismissed, the onus or burden shall be upon the WBSL to demonstrate, in the first instance, the reasons relating to such dismissal, and in the second instance, that such reason comes under a specific category relating to fair reason as provided in section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 38. Applying section 98, the possibly fair reasons would be qualification or capability, conduct , redundancy, continuous employment would cause a violation of the statute , or any o ther significant reason justifying or validating the dismissal. Making application of section 98 (2) (a) of ERA 39, the dismissal of Nisreen shall be considered to be fair and just if it is in relation to the qualifications or capability of Nisreen regardin g the concerned the job. In connection to the issue relating to capability or qualification, the case known as Davison v Kent Meters [1975] IRLR 145 40 must be applied. Making application of this specific case, it must be mentioned that while dismissing Nisreen on the grounds of incompetence, WBSL must always consider as to whether a proper training had been provided or not. It can be specified that it might be fair and just to dismiss or terminate Nisreen who has been unsuccessful in maintaining her work schedule, however, Nisreen should have been provided with the opportunity and scope to learn and study, and it might be reasonable to give any other post for her. Making application of another pertinent case known as Taylor v Alidair Ltd [1978] IRLR 82 41, it can be deliberated that Nisreen has actually been dismissed on the grounds of incompetence or incapacity, and it would be adequate enough that WBSL honestly and fairly believes (upon reasonable grounds) that Nisreen is actually incompetent or incapable. It would not be mandatory for WBSL to actually prove that she is incompetent or incapable. 38 Ibid . 39 Ibid . 40 Davison v Kent Meters [1975] IRLR 145 . 41 Taylor v Alidair Ltd [1978] IRLR 82 . In case of misconduct of an employee, while evaluating the misconduct, the tribunals and the courts should consider the ‘ACAS Code of Practice’ of 2015 concerning the ‘Discipline and Grievance Procedures’ 42. It is mandated by the ACAS Code that the particular rules relating to natural justice must be observed, which means that Nisreen should have been provided with an advance notice regarding any disciplinary hearing ; should have been provided with the opportunity and scope of being heard by any individual who is not actually involved in the concerned matter; should have been informed prior to the allegations are actually made against her; and should have been provide d with the opportunity to contest them, before any kind of decision has actually been made. In connection to the issue relating to misconduct of an employee, the famous case cited to be British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell | [1980] ICR 303 43 should be applied . Making application of this famous case, it can be specified that absolute proof or evidence relating to misconduct would not be necessary. If WBSL sincerely and honestly believes that Nisreen has actually been guilty of the misconduct, and if the grounds relating to the belief of WBSL are actually reasonable, and if the WBSL has given effect to a sufficient investigation in connection to the facts (in a reasonable manner), then it would be enough. This specific ruling had been conformed in the case of Wed del & Co v Tepper [1980] IRLR 96 44. Another pertinent case concerning the given scenario is the case of Airbus UK Limited v Webb [2008] EWCA Civ 49 45. Making application this pertinent case, it can be said that Nisreen performed an activity that gave rise to gross misconduct, and in relation to such gross misconduct, dismissal would be considered to be inside the assortment of the reasonable responses irrespective of any warning was give or not in connection to such misconduct. Where any kind of warning would not make any kind of difference in relation to the conduct of an employee, then in such situation it might be 42 ACAS Code of Practice 2015. 43 British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell | [1980] ICR 303 . 44 Weddel & Co v Tepper [1980] IRLR 96 . 45 Airbus UK Limited v Webb [2008] EWCA Civ 49 . considered to be fair and just to dismiss Nisreen in the absence of such warning. The case known as Smith v Glasgow City District Council [1987] ICR 796 46 must be applied in association to the given scenario because of its significance. Making application of this significant case, it must be said that a dismissal would be considered to be unfair because of an unsubstantiated or uncorroborated alleg ation against the specific employee. It was specified that it shall not be regarded as fair and just to dismiss an employee because of any unsubstantiated or uncorroborated reason. However, in the case of Nisreen, the dismissal would be considered to be fa ir because the allegation against Nisreen was not unsubstantiated or uncorroborated. It must be noted that whether the decision in relation to the dismissal of Nisreen would be fair or not shall be a question relating to fact and definitely not law. This had been confirmed in the case of Piggott Bros and Co Ltd v. Jackson and Ors (1991) IRLR 309 47. Decision Therefore, the following judgment are being forwarded: 1) The Claimant possess the right of claiming ‘unfair dismissal’ against respondent explicitly, and the Claimant was an employee in connection to the Respondent. 2) A fair reason existed based on which the Respondent dismissed the Claimant. 3) The Respondent acted in a reasonable manner in treating such reason as a specific reason in connection to the terminat ion of Claimant. 4) The Respondent gave effect to a reasonable inquiry in relation to the conduct of the Claimant. 5) The Respondent had reasonable and genuine belief that the specific Claimant was actually guilty of the alleged misconduct. 6) The dismissal was wi thin the group of reasonable and sensible responses that were 46 Smith v Glasgow City District Council [1987] ICR 796 . 47 Piggott Bros and Co Ltd v. Jackson and Ors (1991) IRLR 309 . open to Respondent. 7) No failure has been made in connection to the procedure. 8) The Claimant actually made contribution to her own termination or dismissal because of her blameworthy or/and culpabl e conduct (s. 123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996). The Claimant has been unsuccessful in following the ‘ACAS Code of Practice’. 9) The Respondent has been successful in following the ‘ACAS Code of Practice’? 10) In the case of the claimant, such particular failure was not reasonable, and hence, a decrease in the compensation should be awarded as per s.207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. 11) The Claimant would not have the entitlement in relation to any compensation. 12) The Claimant has n ot given effect to reasonable steps for mitigating her loss. Bibliography ACAS Code of Practice 2015. Airbus UK Limited v Webb [2008] EWCA Civ 49. British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell | [1980] ICR 303. Bunce v Postworth [2005] I.R.L.R. 557. Carmichael v National Power plc [1999] UKHL 47. Davison v Kent Meters [1975] IRLR 145. Employment Rights Act, 1996. Futty v P & D Brekkes Ltd [1974] IRLR 130. Lane v Shire Roofing [1995] I.R.L.R. 493. Lawson v Serco Ltd [2006] UKHL 3. O’Kelly v Trusthouse Forte plc [19 83] I.R.L.R. 369. Smith v Glasgow City District Council [1987] ICR 796. Stevenson Jordan & Harrison v McDonnell & Evans [1952] 1 T.L.R. 101. Tanner v Kean [1978] IRLR 160. Taylor v Alidair Ltd [1978] IRLR 82. Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation ) Act, 1992. Weddel & Co v Tepper [1980] IRLR 96. Yewen v Noakes (1880 -81) L.R. 6 Q.B.D. 530.

Fictionville Employment Tribunal

Answer in Detail

Solved by qualified expert

Get Access to This Answer

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Hac habitasse platea dictumst vestibulum rhoncus est pellentesque. Amet dictum sit amet justo donec enim diam vulputate ut. Neque convallis a cras semper auctor neque vitae. Elit at imperdiet dui accumsan. Nisl condimentum id venenatis a condimentum vitae sapien pellentesque. Imperdiet massa tincidunt nunc pulvinar sapien et ligula. Malesuada fames ac turpis egestas maecenas pharetra convallis posuere. Et ultrices neque ornare aenean euismod. Suscipit tellus mauris a diam maecenas sed enim. Potenti nullam ac tortor vitae purus faucibus ornare. Morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada. Morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada. Tellus pellentesque eu tincidunt tortor aliquam. Sit amet purus gravida quis blandit. Nec feugiat in fermentum posuere urna. Vel orci porta non pulvinar neque laoreet suspendisse interdum. Ultricies tristique nulla aliquet enim tortor at auctor urna. Orci sagittis eu volutpat odio facilisis mauris sit amet.

Tellus molestie nunc non blandit massa enim nec dui. Tellus molestie nunc non blandit massa enim nec dui. Ac tortor vitae purus faucibus ornare suspendisse sed nisi. Pharetra et ultrices neque ornare aenean euismod. Pretium viverra suspendisse potenti nullam ac tortor vitae. Morbi quis commodo odio aenean sed. At consectetur lorem donec massa sapien faucibus et. Nisi quis eleifend quam adipiscing vitae proin sagittis nisl rhoncus. Duis at tellus at urna condimentum mattis pellentesque. Vivamus at augue eget arcu dictum varius duis at. Justo donec enim diam vulputate ut. Blandit libero volutpat sed cras ornare arcu. Ac felis donec et odio pellentesque diam volutpat commodo. Convallis a cras semper auctor neque. Tempus iaculis urna id volutpat lacus. Tortor consequat id porta nibh.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Hac habitasse platea dictumst vestibulum rhoncus est pellentesque. Amet dictum sit amet justo donec enim diam vulputate ut. Neque convallis a cras semper auctor neque vitae. Elit at imperdiet dui accumsan. Nisl condimentum id venenatis a condimentum vitae sapien pellentesque. Imperdiet massa tincidunt nunc pulvinar sapien et ligula. Malesuada fames ac turpis egestas maecenas pharetra convallis posuere. Et ultrices neque ornare aenean euismod. Suscipit tellus mauris a diam maecenas sed enim. Potenti nullam ac tortor vitae purus faucibus ornare. Morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada. Morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada. Tellus pellentesque eu tincidunt tortor aliquam. Sit amet purus gravida quis blandit. Nec feugiat in fermentum posuere urna. Vel orci porta non pulvinar neque laoreet suspendisse interdum. Ultricies tristique nulla aliquet enim tortor at auctor urna. Orci sagittis eu volutpat odio facilisis mauris sit amet.

Tellus molestie nunc non blandit massa enim nec dui. Tellus molestie nunc non blandit massa enim nec dui. Ac tortor vitae purus faucibus ornare suspendisse sed nisi. Pharetra et ultrices neque ornare aenean euismod. Pretium viverra suspendisse potenti nullam ac tortor vitae. Morbi quis commodo odio aenean sed. At consectetur lorem donec massa sapien faucibus et. Nisi quis eleifend quam adipiscing vitae proin sagittis nisl rhoncus. Duis at tellus at urna condimentum mattis pellentesque. Vivamus at augue eget arcu dictum varius duis at. Justo donec enim diam vulputate ut. Blandit libero volutpat sed cras ornare arcu. Ac felis donec et odio pellentesque diam volutpat commodo. Convallis a cras semper auctor neque. Tempus iaculis urna id volutpat lacus. Tortor consequat id porta nibh.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Hac habitasse platea dictumst vestibulum rhoncus est pellentesque. Amet dictum sit amet justo donec enim diam vulputate ut. Neque convallis a cras semper auctor neque vitae. Elit at imperdiet dui accumsan. Nisl condimentum id venenatis a condimentum vitae sapien pellentesque. Imperdiet massa tincidunt nunc pulvinar sapien et ligula. Malesuada fames ac turpis egestas maecenas pharetra convallis posuere. Et ultrices neque ornare aenean euismod. Suscipit tellus mauris a diam maecenas sed enim. Potenti nullam ac tortor vitae purus faucibus ornare. Morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada. Morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada. Tellus pellentesque eu tincidunt tortor aliquam. Sit amet purus gravida quis blandit. Nec feugiat in fermentum posuere urna. Vel orci porta non pulvinar neque laoreet suspendisse interdum. Ultricies tristique nulla aliquet enim tortor at auctor urna. Orci sagittis eu volutpat odio facilisis mauris sit amet.

Tellus molestie nunc non blandit massa enim nec dui. Tellus molestie nunc non blandit massa enim nec dui. Ac tortor vitae purus faucibus ornare suspendisse sed nisi. Pharetra et ultrices neque ornare aenean euismod. Pretium viverra suspendisse potenti nullam ac tortor vitae. Morbi quis commodo odio aenean sed. At consectetur lorem donec massa sapien faucibus et. Nisi quis eleifend quam adipiscing vitae proin sagittis nisl rhoncus. Duis at tellus at urna condimentum mattis pellentesque. Vivamus at augue eget arcu dictum varius duis at. Justo donec enim diam vulputate ut. Blandit libero volutpat sed cras ornare arcu. Ac felis donec et odio pellentesque diam volutpat commodo. Convallis a cras semper auctor neque. Tempus iaculis urna id volutpat lacus. Tortor consequat id porta nibh.

150 More Pages to Come in This Document. Get access to the complete answer.

MyAssignmenthelp.com strives to deliver quality content to students of USA and deliver assignment writing services as per individual assignment assistance. We have built up a pool of 3800+ assignment experts who provide academic writing help in more than 100+ subjects. Our skilled and experienced assignment writers deliver custom-made assistances, and they offer need-based university assignment help to students as per their assignment demands.

More LAW1001 Fictionville Employment Tribunal: Questions & Answers

Q
icon

We aren't endorsed by this University

BLM3013 Business Law

there are 2 parts to this assgnment. one is to draft letter Prepare a draft letter to client (no more than 2 pages long) advising on : ? The requirements and procedure to be taken in order to obtain a Grant of representation ? Purpose of obtaining a Grant and consequences of not taking up the Grant ...

View Answer
Q
icon

We aren't endorsed by this University

ISOL 633 Legal Regulations, Investigation and Compliance

Task: At UC, it is a priority that students are provided with strong educational programs and courses that allow them to be servant-leaders in their disciplines and communities, linking research with practice and knowledge with ethical decision-making. This assignment is a written assignment where ...

View Answer
Q
icon

We aren't endorsed by this University

ACBUS201A Commercial Law

Task: Required: Based on the above information and your knowledge of Australian contract and consumer law, answer the following questions. 1. Outline and describe any legal contractual issues in relation to Audrey’s booking with “XYZ Tours” and whether or not she/NSW Wealth Manag ...

View Answer
Q
icon

We aren't endorsed by this University

Defu Furniture Pte Ltd

Defu F urn itu re P te L td v RBC P ro pertie s P te L td [2 014] S G HC 1 C ase N um ber : Suit N o 7 26 o f 2 011 D ecis io n D ate : 02 J a nuary 2 014 T rib unal/ C ourt : Hig h C ourt C ora m : Vin odh C oom ara sw am y J C ( a s h e t h en w as) C ounse l N am e(s ) : Mr K ir i ...

View Answer

Content Removal Request

If you are the original writer of this content and no longer wish to have your work published on Myassignmenthelp.com then please raise the content removal request.

Choose Our Best Expert to Help You

icon

5% Cashback

On APP - grab it while it lasts!

Download app now (or) Scan the QR code

*Offer eligible for first 3 orders ordered through app!

screener
ribbon
callback request mobile
Have any Query?