Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Assuming the employee has proven dismissal, the first stage is to establish what was the reason for dismissal, e.g. was it a potentially fair reason or an automatically unfair reason. [3] The burden of proof for this is on the employer. [4] If the employer pleads a potentially fair reason, the burden is on him to prove it. [5]
Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] UKHL 8 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.. The phrase 'Polkey deduction' has become a standard concept in UK Employment Tribunals, as a result of this case and later ones, meaning that even if a Tribunal decides a dismissal was unfair, it must separately decide whether the compensatory ...
The reasons laid out that an employer can dismiss are in s.98(2). Fair reasons to dismiss an employee are if it, (a) relates to the capability or qualifications of the employee for performing work of the kind which he or she was employed by the employer to do, (b) relates to the conduct of the employee, (c) is that the employee was redundant, or
The employee being worse off was not a sufficient reason. Merely because there are disadvantages to the employee, it does not, by any means, follow that the employer has acted unreasonably in treating his failure to accept the terms which they have offered as a reason for dismissal.
The wrong label of 'redundancy' does not affect the point. The second point is whether the reason here was such as to justify the dismissal. Under section 24(2)(a) a reason would be sufficient if it 'related to the capability or qualifications of the employee for performing work of the kind which he was employed by the employer to do.'
A federal appeals court on Friday largely rejected Starbucks' appeal of a National Labor Relations Board finding the coffee chain illegally fired two Philadelphia baristas because they wanted to ...
Did the employee's actions cause or contribute to the dismissal? Is it just and equitable in the circumstances to reduce the award? The Court of Appeal applied a "contract test" to the question of redundancy: whether an employee was redundant was to be determined by reference to the terms (explicit or implied) in their employment contract.
Explicitly listed as cases or unfair dismissal are those due to discrimination in terms of race, religion, political opinion, marital or socio-economic status, as well as dismissals that arise from trade union activities. Any termination of employment that does not give any valid and fair reason is automatically assumed unfair. [56]