Understanding Unfair Dismissal under the Employment Rights Act

EMPLOYMENT LAW

In United Kingdom, the subject matter of employment, wrongful termination, wage system and other rights of the employees and the employers are governed by several legal provisions. The laws on employment are quite strict in United Kingdom and the employers are advised to keep strict policies in workplace to avoid any kind of litigation herein. In reference to the given case problem, the current case scenario of unfair dismissal is essentially governed by the Employment Rights Act, 1996 herein. Seeking law dissertation help can provide the best insights into navigating these complex legal frameworks.

Thus, in respect to the given case study herein, we shall critically analyze the employment law on unfair dismissal, guidelines on ‘Performance Improvement Plan’ and how HR of a company should handle cases against company on the ground of unfair dismissal herein.

Relevant Legal Issues

In reference to the abovementioned case problem, Cerys is law tutor at the college of Bingham where she has worked for three years, including one year of non-permanent position. However, after a report was produced by QAA on the institute’s educational quality and marked the college as ‘inadequate’, Cerys was put on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), even she got positive remarks from the QAA herein. Cerys had an old rivalry with the PIP’s program leader, Rosie. Thus, Cerys suspected that Rosie wants to get rid of her and that is the reason she was referred to PIP. After she was put into the program, she found the targets of the PIP impossible and thus complained to the Dean of the college against Rosie. Following which, Cerys was fired from the college herein. The main legal issues of this case study are as follows:

Whether the termination of Cerys’s position as law tutor can be marked as unfair under the Employment Rights Act, 1996?

Did the institute herein coordinated with all the procedures during imposing the PIP according to Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) herein?

How can the institute deal with the mediation of unfair dismissal of ACAS with the help of legal provisions?

What steps should the college take in order to prove a fair dismissal in the mediation to be held by ACAS?

Relevant Legal Provisions and Case laws

In order to critically evaluate the situation of the abovementioned case problem herein, we shall look into relevant legislations and case laws herein.

1. Employment Rights Act, 1996

The Employment Rights Act, 1996 provides the employee with an absolute right not to be dismissed from any employment on unfair grounds herein. Under section 94 & 95 of the Act, an employee can prosecute their employer for unfair dismissal herein.

Also, the Act holds grounds to dismiss an employee under fair reasons which has been enshrined under section 98(1) of the Employment Rights Act, 1996. Further, under section 98(2) of the Act of 1996, any reason related to the capability or qualification, or performance of the employee shall fall under fair dismissal where the definition of capability and qualification has been mentioned under section 98(3) of the Act of 1996 (Lewis & Sargeant, 2017).

2. ACAS (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service) and Regulatory Reform Act, 2013

ACAS is a governmental body of United Kingdom. While ACAS is not a legally binding provision on the employers herein, but they hold a strong position before the Employment Tribunal if a case of unfair dismissal is taken there. The ACAS code of practice on Performance Improvement Plan held by any company and dismissal of an employee based on PIP report is critical and employers are expected to keep all the documents related to PIP ready before going into a meeting with ACAS as on the basis of such meeting, the ACAS will provide a report to the Employment Tribunal whether all the code of practice was followed or not (Daniels, 2019).

ACAS works according to the Regulatory Reform Act, 2013 and according to section 7 of the said Act of 2013, ACAS shall need to conciliate the matter of unfair dismissal within one month of such termination of service.

3. Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd (1987) IRLR 503

In this case, it was held and decided that an employer is needed to provide the employee with a reasonable ground and procedure before terminating his/her service and the employer is also expected to provide the employee with enough opportunity to improve the employee’s performance as well.

4. Cook v Thomas Linnell & Sons Ltd. (1977) IRLR 132

According to this case, even if the employers are expected to provide the employees with reasonable ground and opportunity before terminating him/her from the service but such opportunities shall not be unreasonable, and it should not impede the employer from running an efficient management system.

5. British Home Stores v Burchell, (1978) IRLR 379

This case of 1978 laid down 3 step tests to determine whether the employer acted justifiably while dismissing the employee herein. The 3-fold steps which had been laid down by this case was whether the employer while firing the employee had reasonable belief that he/she was not capable, whether such belief was based on reasonable ground and whether reasonable investigation was carried out.

Application of the relevant legal provisions

In the given case problem herein, The College In question fired Cerys after putting her on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). As it has been said that Cerys had finest qualification and while the college was announced as being ‘Inadequate’ by QAA, Cerys performance as a teacher was given positive remarks and she was praised by the QAA for her unique teaching process. However, as she had been the newest recruitment of the college and she was only working there for three years including one year of non-permanent position, she was picked up for the PIP course and due to her allege rivalry with Rosie, the Program leader, Cerys was fired after she complained about the PIP before Dean and it was held by the College management that she breached the legal provision of section 98(2) of the Employment Rights Act, 1996 and thus her dismissal was considered to be fair dismissal (Lewis & Sargeant, 2017).

Although, according to the Code of practice laid down by ACAS and before the ACAS authority, the college’s decision on putting Cerys on the Performance Improvement Plan can be looked as being prejudiced, bias and without any reasonable ground. Also, the ACAS authority might see the dismissal of Cerys as being an abrupt decision and it can be argued that Cerys was not given proper warning before she was fired. As an HR trainee, it would be suggested for the college management to arrange proper documentation of Cerys’s performance before she was put on PIP and the college shall also provide documented proof whether she was given fair warning regarding the teaching process by the Dean or the HR team herein. The college can cite the case of Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd. (1987) IRLR 503 and Cook v Thomas Linnell & Sons Ltd. (1977) IRLR 132, in this matter that the college management had spent enough time give Cerys fair warning and opportunities and the PIP shall be cited as fair opportunity according to the Code of practice of ACAS and under section 98(3) of the Employment Rights Act, 1996.

Also, it would be suggested by the HR team to the college management to cite the case of British Home Stores v Burchell (1978) IRLR 379, to show that the three fold test was duly complied with and Cerys was fired after the Program leader of PIP turned in a formal report on her performance which shall be considered as a valid performance report as the rivalry between the Program leader and Cerys was not known to the management team herein. However, the best way to defend the case of fair dismissal on the part of college is to show all the proper documentations i.e., the college management shall need to provide the ACAS with all the warnings given to Cerys in written document and that she was serviced with a written notice of her termination of the service due to non-compliance with the PIP herein.

Thus, the college herein shall have the defense of fair dismissal on the ground that Cerys was provided with a PIP, and she had been given ample opportunities to straighten her performance, but she failed and complained against her program leader which was again marked by the college as troublemaker and not a team player as well. Also, her program leader has put a formal notice in writing regarding her performance on PIP and all of these documentation kept by the college management shall prove to be enough as it was not possible for the college management to know anything personal rivalry between Rosie and Cerys. As for the positive remarks by the QAA, no name was particularly mentioned under their report and the college educational program was given the remark of “inadequate”. Thus, such report shall have no effect on the college dean or the management to decide whom to put on PIP or not.

Conclusion

In the light of the abovementioned statement, it can be said that it might be hard for the HR team to keep a steady case on fair dismissal before the ACAS, however it might not be impossible as well. With respect to employment law in UK, the provisions are strict and more inclined towards the employees. But with the help of the abovementioned case laws herein and if proper documentation can be shown, the termination of service can be marked as a process of fair dismissal based on reasonable grounds.

Dig deeper into Understanding Unfair Dismissal Claims with our selection of articles.

REFERENCE LIST

Books

Daniels, K. (2019). Introduction to employment law: fundamentals for HR and business students. London: CIPD- Kogan Page.

Lewis, D., & Sargeant, M. (2017). Employment law: the essentials (14th ed.). London: Kogan Page Publishers.

Case Laws

Cook v Thomas Linnell & Sons Ltd. (1977) IRLR 132 (Location).

Home Stores v Burchell (1978) IRLR 379 (Location).

Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd. (1987) IRLR 503 (Location).