EMPLOYEES’ PROTECTIONS ON UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Dismissal of work will lead by termination of employee service; consequently if the discharge is claimed unfair by the employee; the employee can charge the company for unfair dismissal under Employment Rights act 1996. Unfair dismissal can be filed at the employment court of law under 2 conditions. First, the employment relationship needs to be proven its existence between the employer and employees. (Smith, 2011) Secondly, a dismissal by the employee needs to be acknowledged for the unfair dismissal claim. One of the limitations is that the claim needs to be filed within 3 months starting from the date of service termination.
Reasonable Grounds for Dismissal
1. Capability issues such as lateness, …show more content…
In 2011 the appellant sought payment of an "essential car user allowance", worth £1,000 a year, which was paid on top of mileage expenses where an employee drove at least 2,500 business miles in a financial year. His claim aroused suspicion because he had not previously reached that limit. This prompted an audit compared the mileages claimed against AA route-finder information relating to journey distances. The journeys were all within the area of East London and were recorded as being between 2 and 8 miles. The mileages claimed were consistently much higher than the AA figures. The claim form sought payment of the essential car user allowance and of outstanding mileage for the period August to October 2011. It is submitted that the Employment Tribunal failed to deal with these items. The submission is decided without …show more content…
UNITE, UCATT and GMB, made claims for failure to refer in relation to a transfer of an undertaking and collective redundancies on 9 June 2011 and 1 July 2011. Management employees, Mr Ryder and Mr Rowe made claims as individuals. They were not members of any Union. Insofar as the claims were not made directly against HMS they would be liable to meet awards made against Kinetic if there were a transfer to them of an undertaking within the meaning of TUPE on 9 June 2011 in which the individual Claimants were then employed. It is self-evident that the questions of whether and when an undertaking is transferred are closely related. A transfer takes place when all the necessary components are
Dismissal of work will lead by termination of employee service; consequently if the discharge is claimed unfair by the employee; the employee can charge the company for unfair dismissal under Employment Rights act 1996. Unfair dismissal can be filed at the employment court of law under 2 conditions. First, the employment relationship needs to be proven its existence between the employer and employees. (Smith, 2011) Secondly, a dismissal by the employee needs to be acknowledged for the unfair dismissal claim. One of the limitations is that the claim needs to be filed within 3 months starting from the date of service termination.
Reasonable Grounds for Dismissal
1. Capability issues such as lateness, …show more content…
In 2011 the appellant sought payment of an "essential car user allowance", worth £1,000 a year, which was paid on top of mileage expenses where an employee drove at least 2,500 business miles in a financial year. His claim aroused suspicion because he had not previously reached that limit. This prompted an audit compared the mileages claimed against AA route-finder information relating to journey distances. The journeys were all within the area of East London and were recorded as being between 2 and 8 miles. The mileages claimed were consistently much higher than the AA figures. The claim form sought payment of the essential car user allowance and of outstanding mileage for the period August to October 2011. It is submitted that the Employment Tribunal failed to deal with these items. The submission is decided without …show more content…
UNITE, UCATT and GMB, made claims for failure to refer in relation to a transfer of an undertaking and collective redundancies on 9 June 2011 and 1 July 2011. Management employees, Mr Ryder and Mr Rowe made claims as individuals. They were not members of any Union. Insofar as the claims were not made directly against HMS they would be liable to meet awards made against Kinetic if there were a transfer to them of an undertaking within the meaning of TUPE on 9 June 2011 in which the individual Claimants were then employed. It is self-evident that the questions of whether and when an undertaking is transferred are closely related. A transfer takes place when all the necessary components are