Unfair Dismissal in Employment Law: Greta's Case Analysis and Remedies

This case study examines a scenario where Greta, an employee of Insurers R Us, is unfairly dismissed from her job due to an unproven suspicion of food poisoning. The analysis delves into UK employment law, focusing on the Employment Rights Act 1996, relevant case precedents such as Lock v Cardiff Railway Co. Ltd and John Lewis v Coyne, and the role of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas). The study assesses Greta's eligibility to pursue a claim of unfair dismissal, considering the Acas Code and the Employment Tribunal. It explores the employer's responsibilities, the employee's rights, and potential remedies, including reinstatement, re-engagement, and compensation. The study concludes that Greta has been unfairly dismissed and can appeal to the Employment Tribunal or obey the Acas Code for arbitration, conciliation, or advice with the company for such unfair dismissal. The analysis highlights violations of sections of the Employment Rights Act and British Employment Act.

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

1EMPLOYMENT LAW
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).

2EMPLOYMENT LAW
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

3EMPLOYMENT LAW
employer in an unfair manner. In other words, the employee can not be dismissed unfairly from
his employment. In the case of Clarke vs Trimoco Motor Group Ltd 1993, it has clearly
specified that an employer of an organization can not be able to dismiss from the employment of
his employee on the basis of any legal trouble, which has been created by the employee, without
providing him with any chance of defending himself.10 In other words, it can be stated that the
employee can not be dismissed or terminated from his employment without receiving any notice
of his wrongful action against any unauthorized code of that organization. Section 86(1) of the
British Employment Act 1996, has also dealt with that it is a right of an employee to get any
notice from the employer before his removal or termination from his employment.11 The Code of
Practice in an organization is based on the new Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
(Acas) 2009.12 The employment rights of individual are very important for the approach to the
government in any effectiveness of employment, as well as in such labor arcade. Fair treatment
at the workplace for individuals has enhanced such commitment as well as competitiveness in
the work environment. According to the Acas 200913, if any employee has been dismissed from
his employment, then there should be certain rights, which he is able to exercise against such
dismissal. The employee can appeal to the Employment Tribunal for such unfair dismissal from
his job or employment. This Employment Tribunal has possessed such power to decide such
dismissal method of employment and can decide such appeals made by the employee who has
dismissed unfairly from his employment. However, the Act14 has also encouraged various usage
of the internal procedure, as well as has expected the matter of appeal regarding unfair dismissal
should be resolved between the employer and that employee. It can be stated regarding this
10 Clarke v Trimoco Motor Group Ltd [1993] ICR 237
11 British Employment Act 1996 S. 86(1)
12 Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) 2009
13 Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) 2009
14 Employment Rights Act (ERA) 1996

4EMPLOYMENT LAW
unfair dismissal the Employment Tribunal has expected that before any complaint registered in
this Tribunal the parties should be involved for reconciling such matter by Acas15 where an
expert or specialist has been hired for sorting out such matter among the parties. Section 112 of
the Employment Rights Act 199616 has dealt with the remedies for unfair dismissal of an
employee. The Employment Tribunal has made orders for the unfairly dismissed employee such
as reinstatement, re-engagement, as well as compensation. In the case of Chagger vs Abbey
National Plc & Hopkins 2009, the Employment Tribunal has made an order for reinstatement, as
well as compensation for unfair dismissal of an employee of this organization.17
Application
In the given scenario, Greta has been working in a company since March 2009. There are
separate microwaves for the vegetarians and non-vegetarians employees. Greta has been unfairly
dismissed on the basis of adding food poison on one of her colleague, Tia who has used the
vegetarian’s microwave, which is clearly prohibited for non-vegetarian to use that microwave.
Applying the case of Lock vs Cardiff Railway Co. Ltd 199818 in this given scenario,
Greta can appeal to the Employment Tribunal for any claim for such unfair dismissal. This
Employment Tribunal has possessed the power to decide such a claim in an unfair Tribunal.
Applying the case of The Post Office vs PA Mughal 197719 in this scenario, the authority
of this company should show a reasonable cause for such dismissal of its employee unfairly. The
15 Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) 2009
16 Employment Rights Act 1996
17 Chagger v Abbey National plc and another [2009] EWCA Civ 1202 CA
18 Lock v Cardiff Railway Co Ltd [1998] IRLR 358
19 Post Office v PA Mughal [1977] IRLR 178 EAT

5EMPLOYMENT LAW
company has dismissed Greta with a vague and unproved reason and with a suspicion of making
food poisoning to one of her colleagues. There is no misconduct on the part of Greta when the
manager of the company Ben has made a disciplinary action against her and unfairly dismissed
from her job. Therefore, Greta is able to claim remedies for such unfair dismissal from her
employment.
Applying section 98 of the Employment Rights Act (ERA) 199620 in this situation, there
is no such misbehaviour such as laziness or carelessness in her work on the part of Greta.
Therefore, there is an unfair dismissal of the employment of Greta, and she is able to make an
appeal to the Employment Tribunal for such unfair dismissal.
Applying the case Sutton & Gates (Luton) Ltd vs Boxall 197821 in this situation, there is
no such misconduct on the part of Greta, as she does not make any failure in exercising of her
talent in her workplace. Therefore, a dismissal on the ground of a mere suspicion of food
poisoning is unfair dismissal and hence, she is able to make an appeal to the Employment
Tribunal.
Applying to the judgment of the case of John Lewis vs Coyne 200122 in this scenario, an
employer can not dismiss his employee on the basis of any offence without any proof or an
investigation. Therefore, there is an unfair dismissal of Greta.
Applying Section 98 (4) of the Employment Rights Act 199623 in this scenario, the
employer of Greta should provide prior notice to her for such dismissal. Still, the company has
20 Employment Rights Act (ERA) 1996, S. 98
21 Sutton & Gates (Luton) Ltd vs Boxall (1978) IRLR 486
22 John Lewis v Coyne [2001] IRLR 139
23 Employment Rights Act (ERA) 1996, s. 98(4)

6EMPLOYMENT LAW
provided an immediate notice for dismissing her. Therefore, it is an unfair dismissal from the
employment of Greta by her employer company.
Applying Section 86(1) of the British Employment Act 199624, in this scenario, the
aggrieved employee Greta should get any prior notice from her employee. Therefore, her
employer has infringed the legal right of employment.
Applying the Code of practice on the basis of Acas 200925 in this scenario, the parties can
go to for any mediation, arbitration or conciliation before applying to the Employment Tribunal
for the remedies. Therefore, it can be advised to Greta that she, as well as her employer, can go
to the Acas before registering a complaint to the Employment Tribunal.
Applying Section 112 of the Employment Rights Act 199626 in this situation, Greta can
claim several remedies in the Employment Tribunal such as re-engagement or reinstatement in
that job or may claim compensation as remedies from that organization for such unfair dismissal.
Conclusion
Therefore, it can be concluded in the given scenario that Greta has unfairly dismissed
from her employment. She can go for an appeal to the Employment Tribunal for remedies or can
able to obey the Acas Code for arbitration, conciliation or advise with the company for such
unfair dismissal.
24 British Employment Act 1996 S. 86(1)
25 Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) 2009
26 Employment Rights Act (ERA) 1996, S. 112

7EMPLOYMENT LAW
Bibliography
Books
Howe, Joanna. Rethinking job security: a comparative analysis of unfair dismissal law in the
UK, Australia and the USA. (Taylor & Francis, 2016).
Legislations
Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) 2009
Employment Rights Act (ERA) 1996
British Employment Act 1996
Cases
Chagger v Abbey National plc and another [2009] EWCA Civ 1202 CA
Clarke v Trimoco Motor Group Ltd [1993] ICR 237
John Lewis v Coyne [2001] IRLR 139
Lock v Cardiff Railway Co Ltd [1998] IRLR 358
Post Office v PA Mughal [1977] IRLR 178 EAT
Sutton & Gates (Luton) Ltd vs Boxall (1978) IRLR 486