Free Essay

Constructive Dismissal

In: Business and Management

Submitted By faisalfariz
Words 3675
Pages 15
INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO: 26(28)/4-32/08 BETWEEN ENCIK FOO JEE HUAH @ FOO CHEE WAH AND C-PAK CERGAS SDN BHD AWARD NO: 1215 OF 2011 Before Venue : : Y.A. Tuan Ahmad Terrirudin bin Mohd Salleh - Chairman Industrial Court Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur 14.11.2007 25.02.2008, 04.07.2008, 12.03.2009, 13.05.2010, 07.04.2008, 07.05.2008, 06.06.2008, 14.10.2008, 13.01.2009, 12.02.2009, 07.10.2009, 15.12.2009, 26.01.2010, 06.09.2010 & 12.10.2010

Date Reference : Dates of Mention :

Dates of Hearing : Representation :

27.11.2008, 26.10.2009 & 12.05.2011 Mr. Krishna Dallumah From Messrs Krishna Dallumah Manian & Indran Counsel for the Claimant Ms. T. Kavitha From Messrs Trevor George & Partnership Counsel for the Respondent/Company

Reference This is a reference by the Honourable Minister of Human Resources under section 20 (3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (“the Act”) for
1

an Award in respect of a dispute arising out of the dismissal of Encik Foo Jee Huah @ Foo Chee Wah (“the claimant”) by C-Pak Cergas Sdn Bhd (“the company”) on 14 November 2007.

AWARD (NO. 1215 OF 2011)
This is a Ministerial reference dated 14 November 2007 under section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act (“the Act”). The reference is about the alleged constructive dismissal of Foo Jee Huah @ Foo Chee Wah (“the claimant”) by C-Pak Cergas Sdn Bhd (“the company”) on 22 May 2007. Brief Facts Of The Case The claimant was appointed as a Production Supervisor in the embossing department from 16 June 1997 with a salary of RM1,800.00. On or about 3 July 2006 the company held a Domestic Inquiry (DI) against the claimant based on the allegation that the claimant had slept during working hours. After the DI, the DI panel decided that the claimant would be given a final warning letter, no increment bonus for year 2006, the claimant was to be placed permanently on day shift, no pay during suspension period from 27 June 2006 until 3 July 2006 and counseling by the Human Resource Department. Despite having this, the claimant alleged that the company breach their own decision against him by demoting him from a Production Manager to an Assistant Supervisor at a lower salary and transferring him to another department. The claimant alleged that after no response from the company about his

2

dissatisfaction regarding the 2 new punishments against him, he then claimed constructive dismissal. The Law The term "constructive dismissal" has been clearly defined in the case of Western Excavating (EGG) Ltd v. Sharp [1978] 1 All ER 713 where Lord Denning M.R. held that the correct test to apply is the contract test. At p. 717, he enunciated the contract test to be as follows: “... If the employer is guilty of conduct which is a significant breach going to the root of the contract of employment, or which shows that the employer no longer intends to be bound by one or more of the essential terms of the contract, then the employee is entitled to treat himself as discharged from any further performance. If he does so, then he terminates the contract by reason of the employer's conduct. He is constructively dismissed. The employee is entitled in those circumstances to leave at the instant without giving any notice at all or, alternatively, he may give notice and say that he is leaving at the end of the notice. But the conduct must in either case be sufficiently serious to entitle him to leave at once. Moreover, he must make up his mind soon after the conduct of which he complains, for if he continues for any length of time without leaving, he will lose his right to treat himself as discharged. He will be regarded as having elected to affirm the contract.”. In Malaysia, the law relating to constructive dismissal has been clearly set out in the Supreme Court case of Wong Chee Hong v. Cathay

3

Organisation (M) Sdn Bhd [1988] 1 CLJ (Rep) 298; [1988] 1 CLJ 45 where Salleh Abas L.P. had this to say. “The word "dismissal" in section 20 of the Act should be interpreted with reference to the common law principle. Thus it would be dismissal if the employer is guilty of a breach which goes to the root of the contract or if he evinced an intention no longer to be bound by it. In such situations, the employee is entitled to regard the contract as terminated and himself as being dismissed.”. In the Court of Appeal case of Quah Swee Khoon v. Sime Darby Bhd [2001] 1 CLJ 9, his Lordship Gopal Sri Ram JCA observed as follows: “Constructive dismissal can take place, as we have

attempted to demonstrate, in a number of cases. Since human ingenuity is boundless, the categories in which constructive dismissal can occur are not closed. Accordingly a single act or a series of acts may, according to the particular and peculiar circumstances of the given case, amount to a constructive dismissal.”. The onus of proving that there was constructive dismissal lies on the claimant. As such and in line with the authorities as cited above, the claimant seeking to establish a case for prove as follows:(a) The company, by its conduct had breached a term or terms of his contract of employment or has evinced an intention no longer to be bound by it. constructive dismissal must

4

(b ) He left in response to that breach and not for some other unconnected and ancillary reason; and (c) He did not delay too long in terminating the contract in response to the company's breach, otherwise he may be deemed to have waived the breach. (See: Tatsumori (M) Sdn Bhd v. Paramjit Kaur d/o Gurcharan Singh [1995] 2 ILR 933 (Award No. 508 of 1995) Balakrishnan Krishnasamy v. Western Digital (M) Sdn Bhd. [1999] 1 LNS 282 (Originating Motion No. R3-25-38 of 1998,)). In Bayer (M) Sdn. Bhd. v. Anwar Abd Rahim [1996] 2 CLJ 49 the High Court enunciated as follows: “Thus it is settled law that the test applicable in a constructive dismissal case is "the contract test" and not "the test of reasonableness". To claim constructive dismissal, four (4) conditions must be fulfilled. These conditions are: (a) There must be a breach of contract by the employer. (b) The breach must be sufficiently important to justify the employee resigning. (c) The employee must leave in response to the breach and not for any other unconnected reasons. (d) He must not occasion any undue delay in terminating the contract; otherwise he will

5

be deemed to have waived the breach and agreed to vary the contract.”. Thus, if the employee leaves in circumstances where these conditions are not met, he will be held to have resigned and there will be no dismissal within the meaning of the Act. The Issues Based on the law as outlined above, the issues before the court are whether the alleged of victimization tantamount to a breach that affects the foundation of claimant’s contract of employment or whether the company has evinced an intention not to be bound by the contract any longer to justify claimant’s claim for constructive dismissal. The Claimant's Case The claimant in his witness statement (CLWS1), testified that on 27 June 2006 he was issued with a Notice to Show Cause for the alleged misconduct of sleeping during working hours at the work station on 23 June 2006 and the company not happy with the claimant's explanation initiated a DI against him and the claimant was found guilty. As a result the company meted out several punishments against the claimant (page 7 of CLB). However, the company then meted out another punishment that is downgrading the claimant from Production Supervisor to an Assistant Supervisor with a lower salary (page 8 of CLB). The company then transferred the claimant to another department vide a letter dated 21 July 2009 (page 9 of CLB). Being dissatisfied the decision of the company to impose two new punishments the claimant then appealed for reinstatement of the original wage and position but the company

6

kept delaying the matter. It is the evidence of the claimant that on 30 April 2007 (page 16 of CLB) he wrote a letter to the company where he stated that in paragraph 4 of the said letter that he has appealed so many times to the Managing Director and the Director to put him back to his original position but was told to wait. Thus, the claimant said that he left with no choice but had to leave the company on constructive dismissal vide a letter dated 14 May 2007. The Company's Case There is only one witness for the company. The witness is Ooi Eng Hooi (COWS1) vide his witness statement (COWS1), COW1 stated that at the material time he was Finance Human Resource and Purchasing Director of the company. COW1 did not dispute that the claimant did work for the company and the company did mete out punishments against the claimant. It is the contention of COW1 that when the company handed out the two new punishments against the claimant he duly accepted and acknowledged it. However he said that the said punishment was given against the claimant because new evidence surfaced in July 2006 showing that the claimant had been sleeping more than once. According to COW1 the company at the material time viewed that claimant as a habitual offender and the plant Managing Director as the punishing authority after consulting the Head Office decided to demote the claimant with a pay cut and to transfer him to another department. It is the contention of the company that the claimant only wrote to the company to expressing his grievances over his demotion and downgrading 9 months after the said punishments.

7

Evidence, Evaluation and Findings After perusing through the evidence and submissions filed by both parties, the court notes that the company contends that the claimant failed to prove that he was constructively dismissed because the claimant had accepted the demotion position and the claimant continued to be in that demotion position for 9 months. Before dwelling into the contentions raised by the company, the court is of the view that it is appropriate at this juncture to first check whether the claimant has successfully discharge the burden placed on him that the company had committed an act that has amounted to a breach of a fundamental term of the claimant's contract which goes to the root of the contract. The court after reviewing the evidence placed in this case discovers that the company did breach the fundamental term of the claimant's contract when demoted him and transferred him to another department. This is because the court is of the view that the claimant has been sufficiently punished by the company. (This is clearly stated in the company's letter dated 5 July 2006 (page 5 of CLB)) when the claimant was charged for “sleeping during working hours at work station on 23 June 2006”. Therefore when the company imposed two new punishments, the court finds that the actions taken by the company at the material time was unreasonable since the company admitted that they acted based on fresh evidence (COW1 admitted this fact during cross-examination) and the claimant was not given any opportunity to reply to the new charge. Further, COW1 admitted during cross-examination that the company did not call any fresh inquiry for the fresh evidence. Thus, in court's view the unilateral action taken by the company is enough to conclude that the company has breach his contract with the claimant. Secondly, the
8

court is of the view that salary is a fundamental term in a contract of service and it can only be changed or varied by mutual consent of the parties. To support this contention the court refers to the case Primason Sdn Bhd v. Chin Ooi Leng [1996] 2 ILR 1708 (Award No. 593 of 1996) which held inter alia, that: "A term that affects a workman's continued employment is a fundamental term and a party can only be bound by such a term he has agreed to. It is of paramount importance that the essential and fundamental terms are clearly spelt out when the workman is employed in the first instance and these terms must be communicated to the workman to be binding upon him. While it is true that the relationship of employer-employee is fundamentally contractual in nature but in industrial law such a relationship should be examined equitably. Invariably the Industrial Court applies to contract of employment special rules which are not applicable to other types of contracts. It is for this reason the employer could not terminate the contract effectively even if the contract contained terms providing for its termination and those terms were observed. Terms and conditions of a contract of employment can only be changed or varied by mutual consent of the parties. The company cannot do what it likes to the contract of employment with the claimant or be permitted to run amok without fear of consequences on a workman's right to work." In relation to the demotion in rank, again the court finds that the company's action was unilateral and harsh since no chance was given to
9

the claimant to rebut his case. In this aspect to refers to the case of Wong Chee Hong's (supra) case on p. 96: “From being the head of one of the respondent company's departments, he was reduced to a mere cinema manager, a position which he had held some fifteen years ago as a junior executive. No doubt his terms and conditions of service remained unaltered and the transfer was part of the terms of his employment. The respondent company must have known that no man worthy of a minimum self respect would accept a transfer with a demotion in rank, stripped of all the powers he once enjoyed amongst his fellow employees. This is not a transfer but a demotion, a punishment meted out without any disciplinary action taken.”. With regards to the claimant's transfer, it is pertinent to observe that the law on the issue of transfer is very clear in that "it is an acceptable principle that the right to transfer an employee from one department to another and from one post of an establishment to another or from one branch to another or from one company to another within the organization is the prerogative of the management”. In Chong Lee Fah v. The New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd. & Anor [2005] 4 CLJ 605, the High Court held, inter alia, as follows: “It is an acceptable principle that the right to transfer an employee from one department to another or from one company to another within the organization is the prerogative of the management. In fact this right of transfer is embodied in the Industrial Relations Act 1967, where s. 13

10

provides that a company has the right to transfer its employees within the organization so long as such transfer does not entail a change to the detrimental of an employee in regard to the terms of employment.”. In the case of Antioni Sd. Bhd. v. Maria Lawrence [2001] 2 ILR 364 @ 367 the learned Chairman had this to say:"It is a well-established principle in industrial jurisprudence that the transfer of employees in the interest or exigencies of the employer's business is a managerial prerogative. Such a prerogative, however, is not absolute or untrammeled. Where a transfer is tainted by ulterior motive, arbitrariness or capriciousness, unfair labour practice or mala fide the same is subject to intervention.”. And in Govindasamy Munusmay v. Litang Plantations Sd. Bhd. [2006] 3 ILR 1830 the learned Chairman stated as follows:"It is well established in industrial law that the right to transfer an employee from one department to another or from one branch to another or from one company to another within the organization is the prerogative of the management and the Industrial Court will not interfere unless the transfer is actuated with improper motive.”. However the right to transfer is not without restriction. In Ladang Holyrood v. Ayasamy A/L Manikam & 16 Ors [2004] 2 CLJ 697, ("Holyrood's case") Arifin Zakaria, JCA (now Chief Judge High Court of Malaya) endorsed the right of the company to transfer its employees

11

from one company to another within its organization but subject to well recognized restrictions as set out in Ghaiye's Misconduct in Employment which are as follows: (i) there is nothing to the contrary in the terms of employment; (ii) the management has acted bona fide and in the interest of its business; (iii) the management is not actuated by any indirect motive or any kind of mala fide; (iv) the transfer is not made for the purpose of harassing and victimizing the workmen; and (v) the transfer does not involve a change in the conditions of service. His Lordship further went on to state that whether a transfer entails a change to the detriment of an employee in regard to the terms of employment, or whether the transfer was bona fide is a question of fact for the court to determine. In the instant case, the court finds that the claimant's letter of appointment did not state that he was transferable (page 1 of CLB). Secondly, no evidence was adduced by the company to show that the claimant was transferable. Thirdly, the claimant's transfer was clearly done to punish him for the the misconduct since it is not disputed that due inquiry was not conducted by the company. Thus, it is without

12

doubt that the claimant's transfer was not done bona fide but more to punish him. In light of the above findings, it is crystal clear that the claimant was constructively dismissed by the company. Coming back to the contentions of the company that the claimant accepted the demotion and he continued to be in that demotion position for 9 months, the court finds that there was no delay on the part of the claimant because based on facts it has been clearly established that after he was given the two new punishments vide letter dated 20 July and 21 July 2006 (pages 8 and 9 of CLB) he did make several verbal protest to the Managing Director and COW1. Secondly, the claimant took the grievance to the Industrial Relation Office within 5 days of the company meted out the punishment against him (pages 10 and 11 of CLB). Thirdly, the claimant was promised numerous times by COW1 to wait for the decision by the company but the company failed to respond until the claimant claimed constructive dismissal. Fourthly, COW1 did not deny that during cross-examination that he requested the claimant to give him more time to decide on the matter. As such, the court is of the finding that the claimant cannot be penalised for having relied on such assurances and not walking out earlier on constructive dismissal. In other words, the court is of the opinion that the delay on the part of the claimant cannot be treated as having acquiesced in the breach. In this matter also the court refers to the case of Hewlett Packard (M) Sdn. Bhd. v. Thangasamy Brown Gnanayutham [2000] 1 ILR 198 where it was held by the learned Chairman that the breach of this implied obligation of trust and confidence may consist of a series of actions on the part of the employer which cumulatively amount to a breach of the term.
13

In the light of all the above, bearing in mind section 30(5) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 to act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities and legal form, the court finds that the claimant had proved that the conduct of demoting him from a Production Manager to an Assistant Supervisor at a lower salary and transferring the claimant to another department was in breach of the fundamental term of the contract of employment. As for remedy the court is of the considered view that reinstatement is no longer appropriate. This is so in the light of the fact that it has been more than 5 years has lapsed since the claimant left the company. Hence compensation in lieu is instead awarded. In computing the amount of compensation to be awarded the court takes note of the Federal Court decision in the case of Dr. James Alfred v. Koperasi Serbaguna Sanya Bhd. Sabah [2001] 3 CLJ 541 on the need to take into account factor like when the employee has been gainfully employed elsewhere after his dismissal . In the present case, claimant has stated the income he received from his new employment is RM800.00. Taking these facts into account, the court is of the view that a 20% deduction is fair, reasonable and equitable. The court hereby makes the following orders: i) Backwages - from the date of constructive dismissal (14.05.2007) to the last date of hearing (12.05.2011) subject to a maximum of 24 months ie :

14

RM2,681.00

x

24

=

RM64,344.00

(-)

less

20%

(RM12,868.80) = RM51,475.20 ii) Compensation in lieu of reinstatement - one month salary for every completed year of service (from 16.06.1997 to 14.05.2007) = 9 years and 10 months. RM2,681.00 x 9 = RM24,129.00 and 10 months ( 10 ÷ 12 x RM2,681.00 = RM2,234.17) = RM26,363.17.

It is further ordered that the total amount of RM77,838.37 be paid to the claimant through his solicitor within thirty days from the date of this Award.

HANDED DOWN AND DATED THIS 17th OF AUGUST 2011 -signedAHMAD TERRIRUDIN BIN MOHD SALLEH CHAIRMAN MALAYSIA INDUSTRIAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR

15

Similar Documents

Free Essay

Cases

...[G.R. No. 183383 : April 05, 2010]  ANABEL BENJAMIN AND RENATO CONSOLACION, PETITIONERS, VS. AMELLAR CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.  D E C I S I O N  Amellar Corporation (respondent) provides information technology services to local government units (LGUs) including computerizing their system and operations. In October 1999, respondent hired petitioner Anabel Benjamin (Anabel) who, since March 26, 2001, was the Project Data Controller of its Content Build Up (CBU) Department. The CBU Department of respondent collates and cleanses all the paper data gathered from the LGU-client which are then encoded and fed into the designed operating system. As the most senior member of the department, Anabel was its officer-in-charge. From 2002 to 2003, she administered the CBU functions of respondent's projects in Imus, Cavite and Mabini, Batangas.[1] Petitioner Renato Consolacion (Consolacion), a supervising data controller in respondent's Imus project, directly reported to Anabel.[2] By letter of March 20, 2003, the municipal assessor of Mabini, Batangas informed the manager of respondent that its real property tax administration database was not "100% complete," contrary to the report of respondent's supervising data controller Evangeline Repiano (Evangeline).[3] Melvin Tandoc (Tandoc), respondent's Technology Manager, thus sent Anabel a memorandum of March 27, 2003 reading: This is the first written complaint of such nature that we have received from our client. However...

Words: 25795 - Pages: 104

Premium Essay

Constructive Dismissal in Malaysia

...GROUP ASSIGNMENT LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BLR 3084 BC 226 Constructive Dismissal in Malaysia NAME | ID NUMBER | Nur Sheriena Bt Gamal Nasir | 1071114274 | Amira Bt Ramli | 1071116705 | Sam Weng Keong | 1081106812 | Ashkan Sahraee | 1081107220 | Behnam Yami | 1071118686 | Gakegalale Resitanye Senabe | 1071117910 | TABLE OF CONTENTS | Topic | Pages | 1 | Introduction | 1 | 2 | Case 1 - Puan S. Santhi V TetuanDecanHussin | 2-5 | 3 | Case 2 - Azlan Zainal Abidin ,Ahmad Kamil Shahperi Shahibi, Samsudin Zainol Abidin VMalaysia Airlines | 6-8 | 4 | Case 3 – Puan Rasila Binti Hamzah VUMW Corporation Sdn Bhd | 9-10 | 5 | Conclusion | 11 | 6 | References | 12 | INTRODUCTION Constructive dismissal occurs when an employee terminates the contract of employment by appearing to resign. We say it appears so because it is not voluntary resignation. It is resignation caused by the employer’s behaviour. The classic case of constructive dismissal in Malaysia is the case of Wong Chee v Cathay Organization (1988). It would be a constructive dismissal if an employer is guilty of a breach of the contract or if he has evinced an intention no longer to be bound by it. In such situation the employee is entitled to regard the contract as terminated and him as being dismissed. The following examples further demonstrate constructive dismissal, reduction of salary, downgrading, forced to resign or retire, behaviour by the employer intended...

Words: 2627 - Pages: 11

Free Essay

Legal Research Paper

...Elizabeth Gomez Saratoga Hostel v. Avila (2009) In 1999, Maria Avila was hired as a housekeeper by Saratoga Hostel; she was 42 years old. Her duties included: cleaning twelve rooms a day, doing some laundry, and cleaning the hallways as well. Due to the economic crisis of 2009, Saratoga Hostel hired a new business consultant to find ways to reduce costs and personnel. The housekeeping department let go 3 of their 10 employees. The manager then decided to train all employees to clean 14 rooms per day instead of 12. When the training was over, 3 employees could not handle the pressure of the new routine, Avila was of them. These three employees were given another week of training. After that week, when their performance did not improve, the manager called each of the 3 employees to a private meeting, and opened a new part-time/seasonal housekeeper position. Avila was given a verbal warning for her current poor performance (up to this point, Avila’s performance was always described as “good” or “excellent”.) Comments about Avila’s age starting to be heard around the hotel after her warning; she was called “grandma”, and constantly asked if she usually uses her “senior discount” at stores. She was the oldest housekeeper. Also, rumors around the employees were saying that, out of the three employees who were called to speak to the manager, only Avila’s was given a verbal warning. When her performance did not improve, she was terminated in January...

Words: 1729 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

Wgu Jdt2 Assignment Human Resources

...INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: DONALD ERTL: CEO FROM: M.T. ALLEN: HR SPECIALIST SUBJECT: EMPLOYEE CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE SUITE DATE: 7/22/2012 CC: LEGAL DEPARTMENT I. PROBLEM: We have received notice of suit arguing that the plaintiff, a former employee, was forced to resign due to constructive discharge. The plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Even though the employee is the one who has quit, it is ERTL Toys that can be legally liable for lost wages, pain and suffering, and punitive damages if the plaintiff prevailed. II. DISCUSSION: A. Constructive Discharge Constructive discharge, or constructive dismissal as it is sometimes referred to, makes a legal claim that the employer made a material breach of contract that is implied between the defendant ERTL Toys (“Employer”), and the plaintiff (“Employee"), by making unilateral changes to the implied contract that forces the Employee into a default situation. (Various, 2011)1 Specifically, Employee argues that ERTL Toy’s unilateral change of work schedules made Employee’s continued employment untenable because working on specific holy days is forbidden according to his religious doctrine. B. Title VII 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 "Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e [2] et seq., prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin." (Title VII 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, 1964)2 The...

Words: 841 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Lot Beyond Numbers

...THERE IS LOT BEYOND NUMBERS With the kind of grit he displayed scoring 66 runs in the CB series final against Australia, in 2007 partnering Sachin Tendulkar, one of the famous chases of India outside sub-continent, he is seen as future prospect. His profound technique is in line of comparison with some of the all-time greats. But he kept surprising people with the numbers. If you happen to miss out on action of cricket for some time and down the line few years later, if we look at Rohit’s cricketing numbers one definitely has to wonder if he is the same guy whom we expected things from. Had there been another of the same name into Indian cricket team? Have a look at the stats and there are dismal. Has two one day double hundreds to his name, the only batsman in cricketing history as of now but a batting average under 38. The cricketing experts back him, the team management backs him. With seven years of International cricket and still not a deserving place in the Indian cricket team says it all about the consistency which he displayed. Then what is that’s more enticing about his game? Is it the Lazy elegance? Is it the aura of ease that hangs in when he bats around. When we say sporting is for entertainment, we get lots of it when he bats. He is definitely not the reliable ones but as an mediocre Indian cricket fan I am looking for something lesser than winning, just entertainment LIFE COULD HAVE BEEN MUCH EASIER A three year old kid doesn’t even have a hint of idea of where...

Words: 622 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Employment Law in Retail

...FDA RETAIL MANAGEMENT Retail Law – LO3 Jake McBride CLC ID: 106639 UW ID: 1091947288421 Table of Contents TERMS OF REFERENCE 3 FINDINGS 3 CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT 3 IMPLIED AND EXPRESS TERMS IN AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT 4 DISMISSAL 5 UNFAIR DISMISSAL 6 ELIGIBILITY TO CLAIM UNFAIR DISMISSAL 7 WAS A FAIR PROCEDURE FOLLWED? 8 DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION 8 REMEDIES 9 UNFAIR DISMISSAL CLAIM 9 DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION 9 CONCLUSION 10 RECOMMENDATIONS 10 BIBLIOGRAPHY 11 TERMS OF REFERENCE I work as legal advisor for a national toy chain, Playtime. I am going to produce a report examining common law and statutory issues raised by a former employee who may pursue a case for constructive dismissal. I hope to advise Playtime of any action Miss Parry may take in light of her departure from the company and will give recommendations and remedies which may apply to this scenario. FINDINGS CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT An employment contract, or ‘contract of employment’, is an agreement between an employer and an employee which sets out their employment rights, responsibilities and duties. These are called the ‘terms' of the contract. (DirectGov, Online, Accessed 18/12/2010) Employment contracts do not have to be in writing, they can be word of mouth. However, every employee is entitled to a written statement containing employment terms and conditions within 2 months of starting work. The statement must contain a number of relevant details such as Hours...

Words: 2219 - Pages: 9

Premium Essay

An Ethical Dilema

...1. How does the company’s organizational culture appear to conflict with its ethical policies? The company’s ethical policies include integrity and confidentiality and the organizational culture is one of disrespect and lacks the values of the company’s ethics policy. Sarah called the ethics hotline to report other salespeople making promises and guarantees that weren’t going to be fulfilled and she asked that her name remain confidential. Management was using reward power to get salespeople to increase their sales. ““Carrot dangling” and incentives have been shown to be effective in getting people to change their behavior in the long run. Therefore, rewards could encourage individuals to act in the own self-interest, not necessarily in the interest of stakeholders.” When Jim asked his manager about the report Sarah made he found out her sales manager had been told who reported it; violation of confidentiality. Her manager claims he fired her for “poor performance” 2 weeks after learning about the report. Since her manager knew about the report and who filed it, it could be construed as retaliation even if she really was let go for poor performance. The company has no integrity because David defended the manager’s abusive behavior with employees by stating, ““You’ve got to understand, Jim.” David explained. “We operate in a highly competitive field. Employees have to work quickly and efficiently in order to maintain our business. This often requires supervisors to get tough...

Words: 685 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Bilbo Baggins Case Study

...2007 FILE: Wrongful Dismissal case of Bilbo Baggins vs. Orc. Industries Corp. In this suit the plaintiff, Bilbo Baggins, is suing his previous employer Orc Industries Corp., the defendant, for wrongful dismissal. Orc Industries Corp., fired the plaintiff after 5 months of employment with the company, on the grounds of, “dishonesty and coming to work drunk.” The plaintiff was fired early May of 2007 with just cause yet no evidence in support of their allegations. After reviewing the facts it is evident that wrongful dismissal has occurred seeing as the plaintiff has been terminated without a clear period of notice or severance pay. The plaintiff would like to file for a suit of wrongful dismissal against the defendant to get compensation for his lost wages, and damages to his reputation in the industry after having such harsh allegations made against him by one of the largest industrial manufacturers in the industry....

Words: 576 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

Business Law

...met by the claimant in a case involving wrongful dismissal? INTRODUCTION According to Ashgar Ali Mohamed (2004), "At common law, the employer-employee relationship is contractual; the employer may terminate the contract of employment by serving appropriate notice, as expressed in the contract or implied reasonable notice. Wrongful dismissal occurs when the employee is dismissed without notice or with inadequate notice". SUPPORTING CASE: MASSEY V CROWN LIFE INSURANCE CO (1978) According to HM Revenue and Customs UK, "Mr. Massey was the manager of a branch of the Crown Life Insurance Company of Canada from 1971 until 1973; he was an employee of the company. It paid him wages from which it deducted tax, NICs and graduated pension contributions. He also made contributions to the firm’s pension scheme". Moreover, in 1973 by mutual consent "the company engaged him on a self-employed basis under a new agreement. His duties under this new agreement were almost identical to those under his previous contract of service. The only real differences were that he no longer made pension contributions and the company paid him gross without any deductions for tax etc. This arrangement continued until 1975 when the company dismissed him. Mr. Massey then claimed unfair dismissal". DECISION OF THE CASE The Industrial Tribunal decided that Mr. Massey was not employed under a contract of service and therefore could not claim unfair dismissal. The EAT upheld this decision, as did the Court...

Words: 2889 - Pages: 12

Premium Essay

5 Rtp

...| * Describe the principles of effective workforce planning and tools used to carry it out. | | | * Develop basic succession and career development plans | | | * Contribute to plans for downsizing an organisation. | | | LO5: Understand how to maximise employee retention. | * Explain the costs associated with dysfunctional employee turnover and ways of calculating them. | | | * Examine why people choose to leave or remain employed by organisations. | | | * Assess the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches to the retention of talent. | | | LO6: Know how to manage dismissal, redundancy, and retirement effectively and lawfully. | * Explain the main legal requirements in relation to dismissal, retirement, and redundancy. | | | * Advise organisations on good practice in the management of dismissals, retirements, and redundancies. | | | ASSESSMENT OUTCOME | PASS/REFER | | Students should please note that the above Assessment Outcome for this Unit is provisional and is subject to Internal EHWLC verification (IV) and external CIPD Verification (EV). Tutor: Date: Tutor’s signature: Title of report: Resource and Talent Planning Contents Introduction ...........................4 L.O. 2 ......................................4 L.O. 5 ..................................... L.O 6 ..................................... Appendix ............................. References .............

Words: 5426 - Pages: 22

Premium Essay

Principles of Employment Law

...1. Advise Michael to whether Richard is likely to succeed in any legal claim of unfair dismissal against the company and as to the nature of any remedies he may receive. This case is primary based on several aspects, included in the Employment Rights Act. According to the text, we have a summary dismissal based on gross misconduct in the form of gross disobedience and insolence. First of all, a case of dismissal is when the employer terminates an employee’s contract. The expiry of a fixed term contract is also considered as a dismissal. In contradistinction from this, a resignation is more likely to be considered as something different. Resignation is normally examined to be termination by the employee, not the employer, therefore when an employee resigns, no dismissal has taken into place. According to our case, we have something more that ordinary dismissal, namely summary dismissal. Summary dismissal always occurs when the contract is terminated instantly, without any try of notice. “Summary dismissal” or “Instant dismissal” is the dismissal of an employee on the spot and without notice. To be more precise, we can conclude that, summary dismissal could terminate the contract of an employee even with notice, in some cases. Another way is by notification. This could happen by giving notice which includes, or is accompanied by a statement in writing that the employer would, by reason of the employee’s conduct, be entitled to terminate the contract without notice. (Employment...

Words: 3875 - Pages: 16

Premium Essay

Iiji

...· ER w/20 or more employees are obliged to re employ injured workers who have at least one year of service with that employer · Benefit of doubt goes to the claimant. · EE gets NO PAY if "serious and wilful misconduct of the worker”. BECAUSE: "EE has taken himself/herself out of employment · Who is eligble for WSIB benefits? 5 different situations: 1) Wilful misconduct (NO PAY) 2) Arising in the course of employment 3) Disability claim - if work relates significantly to it, onus on worker 4) Occupational Diseases 5) Mental Stress & Chronic Pain - acute reaction to sudden and unexpected event at work · 6 BENEFITS - 1) Wages on Day 2) Healthcare costs 3) Loss of Earnings - 85% of net earnings, max 175% average industrial 4)Non economic losses (NEL) - loss of enjoyment of life, younger people compensated more 5) Loss of retirement income - if 12 months loss of earnings, 5% additional goes towards retirement 6) Death and survivor benefits - spouse or childeren compensated, lump sum and counseling based on workers earnings · OBLIGATION to re-instate is until 2 yrs after injury, worker is 65, or 1 year after EE is able to work · Schedule 1 ER (90%) classified on rating, good experience pay less, bad rating pay more. Financial insentive: refund or surcharge given to good ER's · Effective Claims management: investigate injuries, file form 7 within 7 days, document minor claims, respond to Board inquiries, accomodate up to undue hardship, don't contact...

Words: 897 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

Human Resource

...MEMO To: CEO From: Date: Re: Constructive Discharge case Message: With respect to the case filed by a former employee against the company under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, constructive discharge, I would like to draw your attention towards the legalities of constructive discharge. Constructive discharge occurs when employees resign because their employer's behavior has become so intolerable or heinous or made life so difficult that the employee has no choice but to resign (Constructive dismissal). Since the employee is required to work on his religious holiday so it can be considered as a case of constructive discharge. It is unlawful if an employer discriminates against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). Here, the employee can raise issue based on discrimination based on religion. As a way to avoid constructive discharge case, we can introduce flexibility in the working days, the employees may be having certain reservations in working on a particular day, the same can be asked beforehand before finalizing the days for the employees. Also, flexibility in terms of shift can be provided to the employees. Secondly we need to sensitize the issue to the employees of our company that the decision has been taken to increase the productivity of the company and will help us...

Words: 363 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Law and Management Review

...Assignment One Part One Question Two The numbers of self employed workers has grown significantly in the last twenty years and, in 2008, amounted to approximately four million people, compared to over twenty seven million employees. Over two thirds of the self employed have no employees themselves, and are dependent upon using their own skills and labour. (Julie Bevan, Barriers to Business Start Up: A study of the flow into and out of self employment. Department of Employment Research Paper no 71) Determining whether a worker is an employee or not is the first action of any court during a tribunal. This is very important as employers have a large amount of liabilities to their employees, but not to their other workers, for example self employed or sub contractors. Certain laws are dependent on the nature of the employment for example The Working Time Regulations 1998 (2002 IRLR 96) refers in reg. 4(1), to a workers working time, whilst the Maternity and Parental Leave etc regulations 1999 only refers to employees. There are various benefits to workers being employees. An Employee pays far higher national insurance contributions than self employed workers; however this gives employees the rights to state benefits relating to sickness, unemployment and pension rights. Whereas self employed workers are not entitled to any of these benefits. Self-employed workers also have no rights to holiday pay or allowances, therefore anytime they do spend not working directly impacts...

Words: 3353 - Pages: 14

Premium Essay

Employment Law

...Employment Law Assignment LEWIS JAFFA 3000 words Employment law is a necessity to promote greater flexibility in the labour market alongside a commitment to social justice and cohesion. Employment law is also required for support social security policies such as the minimum wage and encouraging single parents into work. There is also a social commitment by employment law to ensure good, minimum standards of protection for employees. Employment law is essential to protect employees from unjust or unfair behaviour by employers, especially those who could be under-represented if there were no laws, such as the poorest and the disabled. Two examples of this are the Disability Discrimination Act of 1995, which applies to all organisations who employ more than 20 staff. They’re required to accommodate the needs of the disables and establish a right of access for the disabled, and to stop them being treated less favourably than they would if they were not disabled. A second example is the National Minimum Wage Act of 1998. This resulted from a directive from the EU, and has increased each year in line with the rise in the cost of living. There is a need to strike a balance between protecting the employee and the employer. Employers and employees have a responsibility to each other, which is why the Health and Safety at Work Act (1974) exists. Employees are expected to follow the act, while employers are expected to abide by a range of requirements governing such aspects as...

Words: 3022 - Pages: 13