The Nature of Employment in the United Kingdom

Table of contents
Contents
Table of contents..............................................................................................................................1
List of Instruments...........................................................................................................................3
1. Introduction..............................................................................................................................4
2. Findings....................................................................................................................................4
a) Scenario One............................................................................................................................4
i. The Nature of Employment in the United Kingdom............................................................4
ii. Disciplinary actions and procedures against employees......................................................5
iii. Rights of Employees.........................................................................................................5
iv. Dismissal...........................................................................................................................8
v. Conclusion: Scenario One....................................................................................................8
b) Scenario Two............................................................................................................................9
i. Disciplinary actions against employees..............................................................................10
ii. When should an employee be barred from applying for a new position?..........................12
iii. Conclusion: Scenario Two..............................................................................................13
3. Recommendations..................................................................................................................14
Reference list.................................................................................................................................15
1

2

List of Instruments
The Employment Act, 2008.
The Employment Tribunals Regulations, 2008.
The Equity Act, 2010.
3

1. Introduction
In the UK, like in many other countries, employment is an important aspect of corporate
dealings. There cannot exist a company without employees. The workplace is run by
employment laws the company policies, as such it is of essence that every company adopts the
right to ensure that the workplace is run in a formal way to avoid cases at tribunals (Dix and
Barber, 2015). The case study below involves two scenarios where the company’s handling of
disputes is put under scrutiny.
2. Findings
a) Scenario One
i. The Nature of Employment in the United Kingdom
A variety of laws regulates employment in the United Kingdom. Most employment relationships
are expected to be created under employment contracts as stipulated in the Employment Rights
Act of 1996. Among the details that statutory laws expect to be in the written contract include
grievance and appeal agreements, alongside disciplinary rules and dismissal procedures. Among
the rights that both parties have in the employment relationship include the right to be given
notice if the employee is being dismissed from office (Young, 1986). Likewise, the employer has
to be given a minimum time notice when an employee is to leave work. The length of notice
varies according to the length of the employment relationship. However, notice is not required to
be given where the dismissal is over gross misconduct or by a court.
4

ii. Disciplinary actions and procedures against employees
The employer is, of course, allowed to start disciplinary procedures against employees deemed to
have violated the disciplinary code of the employment contract. Such procedures may, of course,
begin with informal ones before the formal process, but the law does not restrict employers from
going directly to the formal stage (Young, 1986). The formal disciplinary process is more
compulsory for dismissal, with the employer expected to give the employee a chance to explain
themselves at a disciplinary hearing before dismissal. This extends to a right that the employee
has to appeal to any decision that the employer decides to make.
The law demands that the disciplinary procedure be put out in writing, critically pointing out
what is punishable and what action the employer might take. It is also supposed to outline a party
that the employee can revert to if discontent with disciplinary decisions arrived at. The law
demands of any employer’s disciplinary procedure to have included the following four steps
(Gifford, Carta and Cox, 2007):
a) A letter outlining the issue causing dispute.
b) A meeting to discuss the issue; where the employee is given an opportunity to be heard.
c) The disciplinary decision made.
d) A chance for the employee to appeal the decision.
iii. Rights of Employees
Employees in the UK have a variety of rights regarding the disciplinary action that can be taken
against them. In dismissing the two employees, the sales director could have violated some rights
that John and Diana have in under UK laws regulating employment relationships, keeping in
mind that the dismissal was an informal one without proper investigation.
5

Disciplinary procedures in the country are all expected to follow the ACAS code of practice
(Gifford, Carta and Cox, 2008). Though not mandatory to be followed, failure of the employee to
do so will result in the employee getting a higher amount of money in compensation if they win a
case in a tribunal as was held in the case of Holmes v Qinetiq Ltd (UKEAT 0206/15). After the
meeting with the employee to establish the facts of the case, which in this case can be considered
to have happened when the director met the two employees at the office on Tuesday morning.
After that first meeting for establishing facts, then the employer is supposed to either proceed to
a disciplinary hearing or drop the claim against the employee. In the event that the employer
decided to investigate the matter, then the following steps are expected to be followed:
a) The employer is expected to send the employee a letter explaining the misconduct that
the employee is deemed to have engaged in, alongside the consequences that they face if
found guilty of having committed the offence. The ACAS code of practice expects the
meeting to be held in a manner that allows the employee to prepare their defence but also
without taking much time from the first meeting (Carroll, et al, 2010). In this case, David
should have drafted a letter to the two sales representatives after the Tuesday meeting,
explaining their misconduct and the consequences they would face were they to be found
to have stolen the laptop.
b) The second step demands that the employer provides the accused employee with written
evidence, if any, that he/she intends to rely on (Arthur, 2000).
c) The employee has a right to be accompanied to the meeting for hearing of the case. The
accompanying party can either be from the worker’s union or even a colleague of theirs
at the workplace.
6

d) At the meeting, the employee retains some rights, too. They must be given a chance to be
heard to defend themselves and give their stand on the allegation that they face. This right
carries with it an opportunity for the employee-facing allegations to ask questions,
provide their evidence and this may include the right to call witnesses to support their
claim.
e) After the meeting, the employee should then be given a written outcome of the meeting
that was held. This step, as in many other administrative procedures, demands that the
employee be given written reasons for the decisions arrived at. In this scenario, John and
Diana ought to have known why, if the first meeting was held, why they were to be
dismissed, or why whatever decision was reached.
f) Next is the right of appeal, which the employee can exercise if they feel discontent with
the decision made. The appeal, like much of communication in this procedure, is
expected to be in writing, and the accused employee should also give reasons or the
grounds on which they think the decision made in their case was not appropriate (Leaker,
2008).
g) The appeal should then be heard by a workplace administrator who was not involved in
the initial stages of the proceedings. This sets another meeting where there should be a
hearing, with the employee retaining the rights they had in the first meeting.
h) Again the decision made at appeal should be given to the employee in writing. The
decision at appeal is deemed final, and in case the employee remains discontent with the
decision, then they should take up the matter to a County Court or the Employment
Tribunal (Gibbons, 2007).
7

The eight-stage process required before the dismissal is what David should have followed in
handling the suspicion of theft on John and Diana. Although not bound to follow them, if the two
employees win a case against the company at a tribunal, then the company is likely to lose more
money in compensation paid to them.
iv. Dismissal
Employees in the UK deserve a fair dismissal where they act contract to the terms of the
employment. Employers need to show that their reason for dismissing an employee is justified.
They also ought to demonstrate that in the circumstances given, they have acted reasonably
(Danford et al, 2005). In this case, the sales director may have been justified to take that decision
of dismissal if all signs showed that it is the two employees who stole the laptop. However, in
this case, there is even a possibility that the laptop was stolen by the former employee who is in
possession of a key to that office.
An unfair dismissal happens when an employer sacks an employee without a legitimate reason or
at least failing to demonstrate it. A wrongful dismissal, on the other hand, may occur when an
employer conducts a breach of the employment contract in dismissing the employee.
Nevertheless, a dismissal could be both wrongful and unfair. David seems to have conducted an
unfair dismissal in the way the two sales representatives were sacked.
v. Conclusion: Scenario One
Diana has taken up the legal process to find justice. The company is likely to face a case under
employment laws in the tribunal. Since the ACAS procedure was not followed in the dismissal, a
win for Diana could result in the company losing a lot of money in compensation (Kersley et al,
8

2013). The ideal advice is that there is an urgent need for Big Kitchen Company Ltd to ensure
that this case does not get to the tribunal as there seems to be a loss in waiting.
Since the employee has already sought legal services and a meeting is in place, David should
accept the invitation and attend the meeting. At the meeting, David should apologize to Diana for
unfair dismissal and seek to temporarily restore her to her position, pending a formal
investigation into the loss of the laptop.
Restoration of Diana is especially critical because she has a clean record alongside a proper
appraisal report. That means she has not received warnings over similar offences and it is highly
unlikely that she stole a laptop in a place she has enjoyed working in for several years. The
restoration is also necessary because the legal process could invite the legal eye into the policies
of the company (Clements-Croome, 2006), many of which have negligently been set up and are
outdated. The HR office could seek to straighten the company records while the two salespersons
are restored. Once the two have been restored then the company could use the ACAS procedure
to look into the matter formally under a formal investigation. In any case, the company is likely
to lose much more money in compensation in a tribunal than the amount that would be spent on
buying a new laptop.
b) Scenario Two
This scenario regarding Pete Hobson raises two main questions for advice; whether the employee
should be allowed to apply for the new position and whether disciplinary action should be taken
against him for his slowness at work. The scenario still has other areas that need to be addressed.
They may include whether the employee should take sick leave due to the inefficiency
surrounding his current condition so that another person takes up the work altogether. It is
9

without question that Pete is sick. The condition hinders him from normally performing his
duties at the company.
i. Disciplinary actions against employees
There is a need to address the issue of whether it is appropriate to take disciplinary action against
Pete in the first place. To begin with, he is not in a condition to perform at his best, and reasons
beyond his own control have caused that. The manager wants disciplinary action taken against
him, so there is a need to ask the questions of who and why disciplinary action should be taken
against anyone.
Disciplinary proceedings serve many purposes in a company, apart from the punitive nature
which they tend to be associated with (Hepple, Coussey and Choudhury, 2000). The proceedings
ensure fair and equal treatment of workers at the workplace in compliance with the law. They
have a tremendous significance in setting a standard of conduct for employees, knowing how one
should act in a workplace and Big Kitchen should be no different. They also serve the purpose of
solving disputes at a cheaper and less time-consuming framework as opposed to the formal
tribunals. Lastly, like in the ACAS procedure requirements, they may demonstrate that a legal
disciplinary process has been followed in case an employee takes the dispute up to a tribunal.
These disciplinary procedures have their bearing in statutory law under the Employment Act of
2008 and the Employment Tribunals Regulations of 2008, both of which all employment
relationships are bound to bound to follow (Knight and Latreille, 2000). Indeed, employers not
only have the right to undertake disciplinary action against employees for misconduct; they can
also do so over failure to perform or incapability to undertake specific tasks. However, the
employer ought to offer the employee some form of support before taking the formal disciplinary
procedure.
10

Employers are expected to consider a wide range of factors when taking disciplinary steps
against an employee for health reasons. They may include the nature of the illness. In this
scenario, it is an illness that brings with it fatigue to the person, which absolves Pete of much
blame. The other factor is the employer’s need for a particular employee to perform that specific
task (Traynor et al, 2014). In this case, if there is another employee who can visit the sites with
the customers and draw up the plans, then a decision to reshuffle employees to enable Pete to
take on a role less demanding of physical energy would be more rational than the disciplinary
procedure. The other factor considered is the impact that the absence of the employee, if any, has
on other employees. The employee also needs to consider before invoking any disciplinary
proceedings, the extent to which the situation has been explained to the employee, to understand
the difficulty that his illness causes to the company. This requirement means that it may not be
very appropriate to take disciplinary action against Pete if the company had not stressed the
importance of his full presence in the job.
Furthermore, the employer is expected to give employees a chance for the employee to
demonstrate whether they can improve before disciplinary action is taken against them (Rees,
2006). In O’Brien v Bolton St Catherine’s Academy, the applicant was dismissed by her
employer after an absence that lasted for an extended period. The defendants refused to look at
evidence that she was able to return to work. The ruling of the court was that the defendant’s
decision was unreasonable in the circumstances and that employers must weigh any decision to
see if they are expected to wait any longer before making a disciplinary decision concerning an
employee. If this was the court’s decision over a case of illness that causes long term absence
one wonders what standard is expected for an inconvenience such as that caused by Pete’s
illness.
11

With these factors taken into consideration, it may not be the best option to undertake
disciplinary action against Pete, except where the result of such action will not mean the
punishment of this employee. The other reason is that the company’s policies and procedures are
not up to date. This means even if the company were to begin proceedings against the employee
immediately, then the outcome may not be the best for the current scenario, so Big Kitchen could
even lose more money in the proceedings of a tribunal.
ii. When should an employee be barred from applying for a new
position?
Where a person is denied the opportunity to get a particular position in a company, the
employers should be careful to make sure that the manner in which it happens does not amount
to discrimination (Pfister, 2008). Workplace discrimination is not only morally unacceptable but
it is also illegal. Where an employee feels that they have been discriminated against in
promotion, then they have the right to take up the case to a tribunal. Although there is a more
significant concern with the significant bases of discrimination, such as age, sex, race and even
religion, other factors such as failing to make adjustments for a worker who is disabled are still
forms of discrimination. Even when a company selects an employee for redundancy, they
commit discrimination (Hussey, et al, 2012). So does it include a situation where the
administrators reject a flexible working area for new mothers? In this case, Paul seeks to bar Pete
from applying for the new position based solely on his sickness.
Discrimination is disallowed under statutory law. According to the Equity Act of 2010,
discrimination is not allowed in private employment. Nevertheless, discrimination is allowed if it
based on an occupational requirement (Taylor and Bain, 2001). This may not suffice in this case
because this condition caters to the extremes of requirements; for example, if a company needed
12

a male actor – a female one can not be suitable for the role. An ‘indirect discrimination’ may
happen where an employer applies a policy that favours a group of people over another, without
a justification for the practice in business. In this scenario, the basis for the restriction of Pete
from trying out his luck in the new position is not based on any policy, and the study does not
show any individual requirement that would make the employee ineligible. The new office
concerns accounts. As deemed by the employee, it may not involve a lot of physical work that
causes his exhaustion so the reason for his application may be justified.
iii. Conclusion: Scenario Two
In the second scenario, there are two questions requiring advice. Whether the company should
invoke disciplinary proceedings against Pete, the HR department would recommend that the
company gives the employee more time to see if the situation will improve while monitoring
medical progress (McDaid, Curran and Knapp, 2005). If Pete is the only person among Big
Kitchen’s staff who can handle the work that he performed then he ought to be given leave
pending the outcome of his medical situation. If there is another person capable of performing
those duties, then a reshuffling of staff to put Pete in a much less physically demanding role
could be ideal for everybody. This is a favourable decision given that the company’s policies are
outdated and need reviewing. Before then, the company can only make an adjustment to get the
best out of Pete.
On the matter of his application for the accounts job, the HR believes that Paul made a mistake
by denying the employee a chance to be interviewed. He may end up doing a better job in that
department, and in any case, if he is not qualified for the job, it should be something that should
appear in the recruitment process. There is a danger of facing a tribunal case from Pete over a
claim of discrimination, in the event that this employee is denied the chance to apply. He should
13

be allowed to apply, and he emerges as the most suitable get the job (Kidder, 2005). The nature
of the work in accounts is different from the one involving visiting sites with the builders and the
result may be different. If he turns out unable to perform both jobs, then the company can invoke
disciplinary proceedings against him.
3. Recommendations
The Big Kitchen has a critical problem to take care of. Policies. The workplace needs to be
regulated by internal laws that are in conformity with the current employment and Corporate
situation (Mc Gillivray, 2002). It is difficult for example, to handle the situation of the two
employees formally because the company policies are not up to date. The recommendation for
the company is to update its workplace policies as soon as possible.
14

Reference list
Arthur, A.R., 2000. Employee assistance programmes: The emperor's new clothes of stress
management?. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 28(4), pp.549-559.
Carroll, C., Rick, J., Pilgrim, H., Cameron, J. and Hillage, J., 2010. Workplace involvement
improves return to work rates among employees with back pain on long-term sick leave: a
systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions. Disability and
rehabilitation, 32(8), pp.607-621.
Clements-Croome, D. ed., 2006. Creating the productive workplace. Taylor & Francis.
Countouris, N., 2016. The changing law of the employment relationship: comparative analyses
in the European context. Routledge.
Danford, A., Richardson, M., Stewart, P., Tailby, S. and Upchurch, M., 2005. Workplace
partnership and employee voice in the UK: comparative case studies of union strategy and
worker experience. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 26(4), pp.593-620.
Dix, G. and Barber, S.B., 2015. The changing face of work: insights from Acas. Employee
Relations, 37(6), pp.670-682.
Gibbons, M., 2007. A review of employment dispute resolution in Great Britain. London: DTI.
Gifford, J., Carta, E. and Cox, A., 2008. Acas workplace training impact survey 2008. Acas.
Grossman, P., 1976. Employment Discrimination Law.
Hepple, B.A., Coussey, M. and Choudhury, T., 2000. Equality, a new framework: Report of the
independent review of the enforcement of UK anti-discrimination legislation. Hart Publishing.
15

Hussey, L., Turner, S., Thorley, K., McNamee, R. and Agius, R., 2012. Work-related sickness
absence as reported by UK general practitioners. Occupational medicine, 62(2), pp.105-111.
Kersley, B., Alpin, C., Forth, J., Bryson, A., Bewley, H., Dix, G. and Oxenbridge, S., 2013.
Inside the workplace: findings from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey.
Routledge.
Kidder, D.L., 2005. Is it ‘who I am’,‘what I can get away with’, or ‘what you’ve done to me’? A
Multi-theory Examination of Employee Misconduct. Journal of Business Ethics, 57(4), pp.389-
398.
Knight, K.G. and Latreille, P., 2000. Discipline, dismissals and complaints to employment
tribunals. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38(4), pp.533-555.
Leaker, D., 2008. Sickness absence from work in the UK. Economic & Labour Market Review,
2(11), pp.18-22.
McDaid, D., Curran, C. and Knapp, M., 2005. Promoting mental well-being in the workplace: a
European policy perspective. International review of psychiatry, 17(5), pp.365-373.
McGillivray, D., 2002. Health promotion in the workplace: a missed opportunity?. Health
Education, 102(2), pp.60-67.
Pfister, T., 2008. Mainstreamed away? Assessing the gender equality dimension of the European
Employment Strategy. Policy & Politics, 36(4), pp.521-538.
Taylor, P. and Bain, P., 2001. Trade unions, workers' rights and the frontier of control in UK call
centres. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 22(1), pp.39-66.
16

Traynor, M., Stone, K., Cook, H., Gould, D. and Maben, J., 2014. Disciplinary processes and the
management of poor performance among UK nurses: bad apple or systemic failure? A scoping
study. Nursing inquiry, 21(1), pp.51-58.
Rees, T., 2006. Mainstreaming equality in the European Union. Routledge.
Young, K., 1986. The London employment problem. Clarendon.
17