THE EMPLOYMENT LAW

Running head: EMPLOYMENT LAW
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

EMPLOYMENT LAW1
Issue
The issue in the given scenario is that what legal advice may be provided to Kingsbridge
Electronics Ltd. [KE] in relation to their employees named Olaf, Petra and Quentin.
Rule
The case of Courtaulds Northern Spinning v Sibson [1988] ICR 451 shall be considered
to be a relevant case in this regard1. In this particular case, the driver who is the employee filed a
complaint stating that he was being transferred from the base where he was employed to another.
The contract in relation to the employment of the driver did not specify or expressly mentioned
any such right of the employer to transfer or shift the driver (employee) from his employed base
to another. The employer made an appeal as to whether an implied provision or term can be
justified in the given contract. It was held that an implied term in the given contract is justifiable.
It was stated that it should be to the satisfaction of the court that the implied term is a sensible
and rational one to which the employee would reasonably agree2.
The case of Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom [2009] UKPC 10 shall be
considered to be a relevant case in this regard3. In this particular case, it was held that the
implication regarding a term in the contract shall be considered to be an exercise in connection to
the construction regarding the entire contract. It was stated by Lord Hoffman that the court shall
be unable to introduce terms or provisions in order to make a particular contract, the articles of
association or a statute, just, unbiased or more rational or sensible. It shall be comprehended only
to determine what the mechanism actually means. It has been stated that in every circumstance
1 Courtaulds Northern Spinning v Sibson [1988] ICR 451.
2 (Mils.co.uk, 2020) <http://www.mils.co.uk/images/stories/contract_of_employment_-_bullying.pdf?
phpMyAdmin=cDX886RXVqSQNaFFkQWC17Ug0Vd> accessed 20 January 2020.
3 Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom [2009] UKPC 10.

EMPLOYMENT LAW2
where it has been mentioned that some kind of provision or a term must be implied in relation to
a particular instrument or mechanism, the issue in relation to the court is whether such a term or
provision would specify in an expressed manner what the mechanism or the instrument, as per
the circumstance of a given case, would sensibly and rationally be assumed or comprehended to
mean. According to Lord Pearson, the implied term or provision must be relevant to the business
value or efficacy. It has been stated that a term that is unexpressed may be implied only when it
has been discovered by the court that it had been the intention of the parties that term should be
considered as a portion of the contract4.
The case of George v Ministry of Justice [2013] EWCA Civ 324 is considered to be
relevant in this regard. In this case, it was discovered by the judge that certain terms and
provisions were not incorporated in the contract. It was mentioned that it is difficult and
problematic to comprehend that any particular thing, as provided in the Bulletin, may be
independently enforceable by the employees.
The case of Alidair v. Taylor [1978] IRLR 82 shall be regarded as an important case in
the given scenario5. In this particular case, it has been stated that in a particular situation where
an employer genuinely, sensibly and rationally believes that a particular employee is incapable
and do not have any skills, then it may be said that the employer shall have a good reason to give
effect to the dismissal of the employee. According to Lord Denning, when a particular employee
is dismissed, it shall be enough that the employer genuinely believes and considers, on sensible
and rational grounds, that the employee is incompetent, incapable and lack necessary skills. It
shall not be mandatory that the employer must provide evidence or proof in relation to the
incapability and incompetence regarding the employee.
4 'British Archaeology In Belize, 1976' (1977) 51 Antiquity
5 Alidair v. Taylor [1978] IRLR 82.

EMPLOYMENT LAW3
The case of International Sports Co Ltd v Thomson [1980] IRLR 340 shall be considered
to be a relevant case in this regard6. In this case, it was stated that in a given circumstance where
a particular employee has not been present at the workplace for a considerable time period
because of illness, then it shall be essential that proper steps should be taken by the employers in
order to determine the actual medical and health position, after such determination, the employee
should be considered with by the employer, before the dismissal or non-dismissal of the
employee.
The case of Retarded Children’s Aid Society v. Day [1978] 1 WLR 763 is a significant
case in this regard7. In this case, it had been stated that in a given situation where an employee do
not acknowledge the wrong, which has been committed by him, and is determined and to act as
he pleases, then it shall be considered to be rational and sensible for the employer to believe and
consider that any warning in relation to the employee shall be futile, and the employer may
dismiss the employee even for the commitment of the first wrongdoing or offence.
The case of Williams v Watsons Coaches Limited [1990] ICR 536 shall be considered to
be a relevant case in relation to the given scenario8. In this particular case, the employee suffered
injuries in connection to an accident at the workplace. The employee submitted certificates for
medical purposes for the time period of six months. After the time period of twelve months
employee informed the employer that he was fit and healthy for returning to the job. It was held
that the contract has not been frustrated. It should have been the obligation of the employer to
conduct inquiries and should not have dismissed the employee.
6 International Sports Co Ltd v Thomson [1980] IRLR 340.
7 Retarded Children’s Aid Society v. Day [1978] 1 WLR 763.
8 Williams v Watsons Coaches Limited [1990] ICR 536.