Search results

The purpose of this paper is to expose practical and theoretical problems with the range of reasonable responses (RORR) test as applied in UK unfair dismissal law, and to propose an alternative interpretation of the test that would resolve these problems.

Through a close analysis of the purpose and structure of UK unfair dismissal law, and a careful reading of the leading cases in the area, the paper questions whether the law as it is currently interpreted achieves the goals of the underlying legislation. The current interpretation of the law being found lacking, alternatives are considered and evaluated.

The RORR test, as delineated in the most recent Court of Appeal cases, holds that dismissals are fair unless they are based on a reason for which no reasonable employer would dismiss. This interpretation of the test is internally incoherent; moreover, it fails adequately to promote the goals of unfair dismissal law, which are to protect the dignity and autonomy of employees. An alternative and superior interpretation of the test would hold a dismissal to be outside the RORR if no rational theory of management would condone dismissal on the grounds given by the employer.

The paper draws attention to fundamental incoherence in the current interpretation and application of unfair dismissal law, and suggests a new and better approach. If the new approach were accepted by the courts or by Parliament, it could lead to reform in unfair dismissal law.

The paper provides a detailed analysis of the RORR test, a long‐standing and well‐recognized problem in UK unfair dismissal law, and suggests a novel solution that would improve the coherence and function of unfair dismissal law.

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:

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.

In a previous monograph a discussion took place on stages one and part of stage two of the three stage process in an unfair dismissal action, namely the employee having to show that he has been dismissed (stage one), and some of the reasons for dismissal which fall within the statutory categories, namely the employee's capability and qualifications; misconduct and redundancy (part of stage two). In this monograph an analysis is proposed on the two remaining reasons, these being the contravention of a duty imposed by an enactment and some other substantial reason. There will then follow a discussion on the test of fairness as constituting the third of the three stage process and on the remedies available when the tribunal finds that the employee has been unfairly dismissed.

Knight's Industrial Law Reports goes into a new style and format as Managerial Law This issue of KILR is restyled Managerial Law and it now appears on a continuous updating basis rather than as a monthly routine affair.

A distinction must be drawn between a dismissal on the one hand, and on the other a repudiation of a contract of employment as a result of a breach of a fundamental term of that contract. When such a repudiation has been accepted by the innocent party then a termination of employment takes place. Such termination does not constitute dismissal (see London v. James Laidlaw & Sons Ltd (1974) IRLR 136 and Gannon v. J. C. Firth (1976) IRLR 415 EAT).

Since their creation through the Industrial Training Act 1964 to hear appeals against levies, the jurisdiction of industrial tribunals has grown considerably. One aspect of this jurisdiction, unfair dismissal, is examined here. Basic principles related to the law of unfair dismissal are examined. The practice and procedure of an industrial tribunal solely in connection with unfair dismissal cases are examined in greater detail. A case study is used to illustrate the important aspects of procedure. Appendices give relevant forms and extracts from the appropriate Code of Practice.

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.

The purpose of this monograph is to examine the various ways in which the contract of employment may be terminated at common law other than by the common law of wrongful dismissal or statutory unfair dismissal and redundancy. Wrongful dismissal has already been discussed in another monograph and unfair dismissal and redundancy will feature in a subsequent one.