Search results

The endless manifestation of employee misbehaviours can be classified according to Robinson and Bennett’s (1995) employee deviance typology. Using this typology, the purpose of this paper is to examine the level of “judicial” tolerance for offences committed by employees across Australian workplaces that culminated in an arbitration hearing before the country’s federal industrial tribunal.

A content analysis was performed on 565 misbehaviour related, unfair dismissal arbitration decisions made by Australia’s federal industrial tribunal between July 2000 and July 2010. Using the count data that resulted, a logistic regression model was developed to determine which unfair dismissal claim characteristics influenced whether or not a dismissal was deemed to be an appropriate course of disciplinary action.

The results suggest that an arbitrator’s gender, experience and background have influence on his or her decision. Significance tests also verified that personal aggression, production deviance, political deviance and property deviance were all considered unacceptable in Australian workplaces. Importantly, the results enable the ordering of the range of tolerance. From this ordering, a picture emerged as to what factor may be framing the extremities of the arbitrators’ tolerance for the misbehaviours: the target (or victim) of the behaviour.

Unfair dismissal claims that are settled through private conciliation, as they occur off the public record, could not be included in the analysis.

Society’s implicit stakeholder interest in what constitutes appropriate workplace behaviour is further testament to the HRM obligation to facilitate sustainable workforces. Management should consider whether dismissing a misbehaving employee is a reactionary approach to broader organisational issues associated with employee well-being and cultural norms. In order to contribute to sustainable workforces, HRM policies and actions should focus on limiting triggers that drive misbehaviour, particularly behaviours that result in harm to individuals as a matter of priority, followed closely by triggers to behaviours that result in harm to organisational profitability.

This paper presents new insights about the degrees to which various forms of employee misbehaviour are accepted in the workplace.

The Howard Shuttering Contractors case throws considerable light on the importance which the tribunals attach to warnings before dismissing an employee. In this case the tribunal took great pains to interpret the intention of the parties to the different site agreements, and it came to the conclusion that the agreed procedure was not followed. One other matter, which must be particularly noted by employers, is that where a final warning is required, this final warning must be “a warning”, and not the actual dismissal. So that where, for example, three warnings are to be given, the third must be a “warning”. It is after the employee has misconducted himself thereafter that the employer may dismiss.

The Equal Pay Act 1970 (which came into operation on 29 December 1975) provides for an “equality clause” to be written into all contracts of employment. S.1(2) (a) of the 1970 Act (which has been amended by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975) provides:

Discusses the long existing and confusing problems of establishing the relationship of who is, and who if not, a dependent worker. Reflects developments which have occurred in British law as it affects the employment field, plus an evaluation and analysis of some of the different types of employment relationships which have evolved by examining, where possible, the status of each of these relationships. Concludes that the typical worker nowadays finds himself in a vulnerable position both economically and psychologically owing to the insecurity which exists.

Talking of newspapers Charles Prestwick Scott said “At the peril of its soul it must see that the supply is not tainted. Neither in what it gives, nor in what it does not give, nor in the mode of presentation, must the unclouded face of truth suffer wrong. Comment is free but facts are sacred.” The aim of this monograph is to adhere as closely as is possible to Mr Scott's opinion. As far as the facts of the proposed legislation are concerned, these will of course be untainted; the commentary which follows from these facts however, being free, proposes to examine and analyse the untainted factual supply.

Examines the situation in the UK in some detail with regard to three aspects of the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights of the European Union. Looks at the aims, together with an analysis and appraisal. Considers, first, information and consultation rights with regards to the transfer of undertakings and redundancies, followd by the right to collective action and, lastly, protection in the event of unjustifiable dismissal. Presents case law throughout as examples. Concludes that the UK has attempted to prevent social and economic rights for workers from being included in the final charter despite fierce opposition. Compares this view together with the UK suspicion of Europe against the views of the other member states.

Judging from the enormous amount of case law which has taken place on unfair dismissal claims since its initial introduction by the Industrial Relations Act 1971, this branch of the law of dismissal has proved more popular than the common law of wrongful dismissal which, though significantly less sought after, is still of importance in certain circumstances. The implications and functions of the law of wrongful dismissal have already been treated. Nothing further need be added; the reader is therefore referred to the appropriate monograph.

An employee who is eligible to make a complaint for unfair dismissal has to prove that he has been dismissed by the employer if the employer contests that the employee has in fact been dismissed. If the dismissal is not contested, all the employee has to do is to show that he has been dismissed. This constitutes the first stage of the proceedings in an industrial tribunal.

Attempts to describe, comment, analyse and evaluate the various facets of the voluntary arbitration scheme. Provides brief information showing the development towards the present situation and provides some explanation. Details the arbitration system, at some length, including structure and proceedings, then attempts to evaluate and analyse the situation in order to draw some conclusions. Suggests that an alternative method of individual dispute resolution is now imperative due to the rise in volume and associated costs. Proffers the use of the ACAS Arbitration Scheme.

The purpose of this study is to critically analyse the concept of unfair dismissal and to assess the extent to which the Employment Rights Act 2008 is affording protection to employees in Mauritius. The purpose of this study is to also demonstrate that as employees form an integral part of their workplace, their employment cannot be terminated without substantive and procedural fairness. The paper will provide some recommendations to cater for loopholes in existing Mauritius employment legislations.

To critically examine the topic, the black letter approach is adopted to detail legislations and judgments of courts on the subject matter. A comparative analysis with some other jurisdictions’ employment legislations is also carried out to define, explain and examine the concepts of dismissal, substantive causes such as misconduct and procedural fairness.

From the methodologies used, it is found that a substantial reason is not sufficient to conclude whether a dismissal is fair. The law of unfair dismissal has introduced some procedural safeguards to protect the employee from being unfairly and unjustifiably dismissed. The procedural requirements act as guidelines to employers and if they are not followed properly, the dismissal will be unfair. Unfair dismissal needs to be accompanied by remedies from employers, and monetary compensation has been found to be the most appropriate remedy.

This paper is amongst the first research work conducted in Mauritius that compares the law of unfair dismissal and its implications with the laws of England and South Africa. The study is carried out with a view to provide practical recommendations in this area of employment law to the relevant stakeholders concerned.