Assignment - Employment Law

0
Running head: EMPLOYMENT LAW
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author’s note:

EMPLOYMENT LAW1
Issue
Issues involved in this given scenario whether Greta is eligible for pursuing a claim of
unfair dismissal from her employment in Insurers R Us if she has been made an appeal in the
Employment Tribunal or can obey the Acas Code.
Rules
The rules regarding employment and its unfair termination in the territory of the UK and
in England and Wales will be applied for the discussion whether the aggrieved, Greta is eligible
for such claim. In the case of Lock vs Cardiff Railway Co. Ltd 1998, the Employment Appeal
Tribunal has decided that this Tribunal in the territory of the UK can decide any issue against the
unfair dismissal of any employee by the employer from his or her employment.1 The case of the
Post Office vs PA Mughal 1977 will apply here as in this case; the Employment Tribunal has
decided that it should be required such information whether there is any reasonable cause for
such dismissal of the employee from his or her employment.2 Any unfair dismissal can be
considered as unfair with a potentiality at the time when the employers can not be able to provide
various reasons, which have been categorized in several categories such as capability,
misconduct, as well as qualification for such job.3 The term unfair termination has been used in
1 Lock v Cardiff Railway Co Ltd [1998] IRLR 358
2 Post Office v PA Mughal [1977] IRLR 178 EAT
3 Howe, Joanna. Rethinking job security: a comparative analysis of unfair dismissal law in the
UK, Australia and the USA. (Taylor & Francis, 2016).

EMPLOYMENT LAW2
the English and Wales, as well as in the Scottish law for describing an action of an employer at
the time of terminating such employment an employee for such conducts, which are contrary to
such requirements described the Employment Rights Act (ERA) 1996.4 Section 98 of this Act5
deals with the unfair dismissal of an employee on the grounds of conduct. The term ‘conduct’ is
primarily relating to a willingness that means the employee is the failure of using a talent for
carelessness and laziness as well as by his misbehaviour. In the case of Sutton & Gates (Luton)
Ltd vs Boxall 1978, it has stated that the term misconduct may be distinguished from such
incapability of the employee in the failure for exercising the full talent, which should be
possessed.6 The employer should show to the Employment Tribunal that the dismissal of any
employee has been done for such misconduct or misbehaviour of that employee with the
employer or any other employees in that organization. In the case of John Lewis vs Coyne 2001,
the court of law has stated that for any suspicion of any type of crime, which may be occurred by
the employee of an organization, the employer should prove to be believed with such guilt of the
employee. However, there should be a need for investigation for such matter.7 In Section 98(4)
of this Act8, it has demarcated that for any suspicion of such crime or misbehaviour of an
employee, the employer can terminate from the employment of such employee by giving a notice
of such termination or dismissal. The Act9 has provided that each employee in an organization
has possessed the right, which has contained that he should not be dismissed from his job by his
4 Employment Rights Act (ERA) 1996
5 Employment Rights Act (ERA) 1996, s. 96
6 Sutton & Gates (Luton) Ltd vs Boxall (1978) IRLR 486
7 John Lewis v Coyne [2001] IRLR 139
8 Employment Rights Act (ERA) 1996, s. 98(4)
9 Employment Rights Act (ERA) 1996