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]
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.'
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
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
If it is irrelevant to the employee's right to *90 claim on the ground of unfair dismissal, or to claim a redundancy payment, whether the employee's work has ended owing to the expiry of the fixed term of the contract or owing to the expiry of the term of the notice of dismissal, it seems to me entirely consistent that the "counting" process ...
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. This, along with the "function test" was subsequently rejected by the House of Lords in Murray v Foyle Meats Ltd. [3
Pay was lower, hours were more, holidays were reduced and the occupational pension and fringe benefits were gone. He rejected the offer and claimed unfair dismissal. The Tribunal upheld Mr Pearce's unfair dismissal claim, and Richmond Precision Engineering appealed.
Lord Denning MR said that the employees were not redundant, because the employer had a legitimate business reason for wishing to vary the contracts, and the employees' non-acceptance effectively amounted to a voluntary resignation. This is a very difficult case. It arises under the Redundancy Payments Act 1965. The employers produce little ...