PH311 Employee Law and Relations: Case Study and Analysis Report

This report examines an employment law case concerning the dismissal of an employee, Daniel, by the Rushmore Academy. The report addresses whether the dismissal was unfair, focusing on the reasons provided and the manner in which it was carried out. It references key legal concepts, including unfair dismissal as defined in the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the importance of fair procedure. The case involves allegations of gross misconduct related to social media posts. The report analyzes whether Daniel was liable for gross misconduct and whether the dismissal was justified, considering relevant case laws like Lund v St Edmund’s School, Canterbury and N Vidini v Howells Legal Ltd. The analysis considers the application of the ACAS code of practice and potential remedies for unfair dismissal, such as reinstatement or compensation. The conclusion is that Daniel's dismissal was unfair and not justified under the circumstances, given that there was no gross misconduct on his part.

RUNNING HEAD: EMPLOYMENT LAW AND RELATIONS
EMPLOYMENT LAW AND RELATIONS
11/13/2018

EMPLOYMENT LAW AND RELATIONS 1
Contents
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................2
QUESTION-1..............................................................................................................................................3
(A)...........................................................................................................................................................3
ISSUE......................................................................................................................................................3
RULE......................................................................................................................................................3
APPLICATION.......................................................................................................................................3
CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................................4
(B)...............................................................................................................................................................4
ISSUE......................................................................................................................................................4
RULE......................................................................................................................................................4
APPLICATION.......................................................................................................................................5
CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................................6
QUESTION-2..............................................................................................................................................6
ISSUE-....................................................................................................................................................6
RULE......................................................................................................................................................6
APPLICATION.......................................................................................................................................7
CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................................9
QUESTION-3..............................................................................................................................................9
ISSUE-....................................................................................................................................................9
RULE......................................................................................................................................................9
APPLICATION.......................................................................................................................................9
CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................................................10
CONCLUSION.........................................................................................................................................11
REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................................12

EMPLOYMENT LAW AND RELATIONS 2
INTRODUCTION
The term employment consists of two persons mainly- Employer and Employee. The
relationship between these two starts when the employer appoints a person who is 16 or more to
work under him, which includes all the rights and duties during the course of employment.
Likewise, the employees too have the rights and duties towards the same. All the rights and
duties of employer and employee depend and vary upon their employment status (Barnard,
2009). The status of an employee has legal recognition and thus has legal rights and duties. The
most important part of employment law is its legislation.
The employment law consists of rights and duties as per the employment services along with the
pay related to normal pay, overtime and part-time as per the scenario. The expulsion of an
employee also has some criteria considered for the disqualification of one’s designation. The
reasons have to specify while expelling the employee. Although if the reason is unreasonable or
not given during the whole process, in that case, the employee has the full right to get either a
proper reason or to get compensation for the same. The person/employee should feel protected
during the course of employment (Cole, 2004).

EMPLOYMENT LAW AND RELATIONS 3
QUESTION-1
(A)
ISSUE
Is it a matter of unfair dismissal under employment law or not?
RULE
The Unfair dismissal has defined in the section-95 of the Employment Rights Act, 1996. The
section defines that when an employer can dismiss any employee from the duty. The reasons to
be told and specified, if there are many reasons for the same dismissal, in that case, the main
reason has to be listed as specified in Lund v St Edmund’s School, Canterbury EAT/0514/12.
The unfair dismissal means that an employee disqualified from the designated post without any
fair reasons given, which is not at all bearable for the employee as well as for the company. Not
just because of the wrong listed reason but also the manner in which it is listed matters (Edwards,
2009). The employee can also claim under this section if the manner of dismissal is not
appropriate and baseless. The manner has to be correct too.
APPLICATION
In the present scenario/case law same happened as it was held in Lund v St Edmund’s School,
Canterbury for once if considered that the reason of the head of the Rushmore Academy Sarah
for the dismissal of Daniel is fair then the way of conducting or the manner in which it happened
was not at all appropriate and correct. If there is unfair dismissal then proper compensation along
with proper apology is by the employer (Ewing, et al. 2012). The employee can bring this to the

EMPLOYMENT LAW AND RELATIONS 4
notice of the employer right after the dismissal if the employee thinks that reason and manner of
dismissal were inappropriate. In the present case related to the dismissal of Daniel is not correct
and the reason given was not matching to the facts of the case. The dismissal can occur if there is
any problem related to the five reasons mentioned. They are-
 Competency
 Behavior/conduct
 Termination
 Civil/ Criminal suit outside of work
 Other reasons
CONCLUSION
Hence, the conclusion is that it is a matter of unfair dismissal under employment law.
(B)
ISSUE
Daniel would be successful in his suit for unfair dismissal or not?
RULE
These can be the reasons for the dismissal of employment and if any other reason is then it will
be an unfair dismissal, which has remedies for the same held in Sekander v Rocketmill Ltd
(ET/2301645/2016). The dismissal should not be insulting or in such a way, that it defames the
employee regardless of the various reasons given. If it is in this manner then there are
terrible/deadly consequences for the same as the case of N Vidini v Howells Legal Ltd and
others: 1600969/2017. The case revolves around a person named Daniel who is a teacher and

EMPLOYMENT LAW AND RELATIONS 5
dismissed from his duties during the working hours on the grounds posted to him after three days
after the verbal dismissal on the reason stated as a dismissal because of the “Gross Misconduct”
(Forth, et.al, 2013). Along with this, there was no gross misconduct on his part during the course
of employment and therefore the reason given for the expulsion is not applicable as held in
Cannon v Poultry Harvesters Pty Ltd [2015] FWC 3126. The photographs can be removed or he
can apologize for uploads to the parents as well as to the authorities, but nothing happened and
he was declared as guilty without being heard.
APPLICATION
Daniel who has worked for like four years in the Rushmore Academy expelled him as he was
partying on his birthday and posted some of the clicks of the night on social media. And as
because he is a teacher and thus he is responsible for his behavior towards the children, one of
the parents complained about the impact of the pictures posted on social networking site on one
of the children and hence, Daniel was thrown out of the job on the reason stating gross
misconduct. Daniel was shocked as he had no idea of what will happen next, as because he was
confused that what misconduct was there about posting some pictures (Hart, 2010). Daniel has
brought a suit regarding the unfair dismissal as he was working there for past 4 years and was not
expecting gross misconduct a reason for expulsion, (Kalleberg, 2000) as there was none on his
part as it held in the case of N Vidini v Howells Legal Ltd and others. Hence, Daniel would be
successful in his suit/ complaint as he has the valid reasons for dismissal from the duty on the
false grounds.
Yes, in the present case through the facts presented it is very clear and obvious that there was no
gross misconduct on the part of Daniel and hence, not to throw out of the employment just as it
happened in the case of Mr. N Vidini v Howells Legal Ltd and others. The head teacher Sarah

EMPLOYMENT LAW AND RELATIONS 6
might be correct in regards to the pictures posted on the internet of drinking which can affect the
children but that does not mean to dismiss someone without even a warning, even if the person
expelled has been working for the school from so many years. At least a warning would notify
Daniel or he can remove all the inappropriate pictures from the internet (Hills, 2010).
Hence, Daniel has the privilege to file a suit complaining about not to be heard as held in
Cannon v Poultry Harvesters Pty Ltd. In addition, being an employee of the Rushmore Academy
for last four years, he deserves a warning as well as a single chance to clarify his side of the
thing, because there were many alternatives for the problem caused.
CONCLUSION
Daniel will be successful in his suit of unfair dismissal as because there is no gross misconduct
on his part. In addition, if there might be any fault on Daniel’s part, in that scenario he should
have given an opportunity to rectify his part/mistake.
QUESTION-2
ISSUE-
Is Daniel is liable for gross misconduct or not?
RULE
There are some code and conduct, which needs to be follow by an employee of any firm or
association, and in this case, it is Daniel and Sarah, Daniel the employee and Sarah the head
teacher in the school as it laid in Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union v Arnotts Biscuits
Ltd [2010] FCA 770. The case is whether the dismissal of Daniel on the grounds of “Gross
Misconduct” was appropriate or not. Well, this is obvious that it is not on the part of Daniel but

EMPLOYMENT LAW AND RELATIONS 7
for Sarah the image is very important, as school is one such place, which progresses only when
its name is on the good books, and for the name or goodwill on the charts one has to maintain the
dignity anyhow under any circumstances (Kalleberg, 2009). The Acas code of practice on
disciplinary means how the problem can be resolved in an informal way. The employment
tribunals always consider this code into the relevant case laws wherever needed as it held in M
Hopwood v Hampshire County Council and The Governing Body of Oak Lodge School
1402921/2018.
Many potential codes on practice on disciplinary or grievance issues can often be resolved
informally. Related Cases of small misconduct or unacceptable performance are usually resolved
informally. A silent word is often all that is essential to upgrade an employee's conduct or act.
The ACAS Code of Practice lays out the basic requirements- like fairness that will be applicable
in most cases; it provides the level of reasonable behavior for most cases as held in Mr. Robert
Mitcham v Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency: 1600939/2017. The Code will help
employees, employers and representatives dealt with disciplinary, and grievance issues in the
workplace (Knight, et.al, 2000). In relation to Daniel’s case, the chance of fair hearing was
missing and thus the code not applied properly as it meant to be in any person’s course of
employment as held in M Smith v XGAS Ltd: 1600270/2018.
APPLICATION
Under the statute and in regards to this case of unfair dismissal, if a Tribunal finds an employee
has been unfairly disqualified or dismissed then there are 3 options for him/her to go for as
under- section-112, ERA 1996 as follows:

EMPLOYMENT LAW AND RELATIONS 8
 Firstly, make or order for reinstatement that is to give back the position, which he was
earlier holding, in the workplace i.e., the school.
 Secondly, make an order for compensation i.e., to pay for all the inconvenience happened
to the employee that is to Daniel in the present case.
 Moreover, in the re-engagement, the tribunal shall ask the employee to whether he/she
wants to continue working in the same workplace or not. That is Daniel will have the
chance, whether he wants to join under Sarah again or not, if he turns out to unfair
dismissal or Sarah should have done, what happened in the case of Liquor Hospitality
and Miscellaneous Union v Arnotts Biscuits Ltd.
The Rushmore Academy should have given a chance to Daniel but it did not. Sarah, on the other
hand, is the head teacher straight away gave the dismissal order to Daniel, which is quite unfair
to any employee. The issue, in this case, was not a big one or the issue that does not have a
solution. Hence, there are above all the remedies to Daniel if just in case the tribunal passes his
side or in other words he won the case. The remedies are available as per the case but these are
some basic remedies mentioned above that, Daniel can easily opt for or tribunal can think of.
Daniel can also, give a letter of apology mentioning the school authorities as well as the parents
of the children who complained same which happened in Lund v St Edmund’s School,
Canterbury. Also, one more thing, in order to rectify Daniel’s side he shall remove all such
pictures of him partying and drinking which can actually affect the children, as Daniel is the
teacher who is also a mentor to all children. Hence, these remedies and suggestions are into
consideration by the school authority and Daniel for a better conclusion/outcome. If a person is
partying outside the course of employment and posted some of the pictures that counted as
misconduct is not correct (Lee, 2000).

EMPLOYMENT LAW AND RELATIONS 9
CONCLUSION
The conclusion is that Daniel is not exactly liable for gross misconduct but a small mistake on
his part that he should have taken care about the image and the designation, which he holds for
last four years.
QUESTION-3
ISSUE-
Whether Stephan should be compensated or not and his demands are right or wrong?
RULE
In relation to the Equality Act, 2010 Stephan’s situation is completely eligible for compensation
from the school authority. When Stephan asked Sarah to buy some of the detergents, which are
less harmful, was not at all bad and unnecessary as laid in Lund v St Edmund’s School,
Canterbury. In fact, without even considering his problem of permanent skin disease, which
caused in the premises during the course of employment, Stephan without any personal benefit
or gain was working with the school (Mantouvalou, 2008). Nevertheless, when the disease and
problem became unbearable and he asked for the solution that is to change or to buy him
different liquid for the school purpose the reaction of Sarah was quite unreasonable and unequal
considering that the Equality Act, 2010 opposes the same practices as based on M. Czapkowicz v
Amazon.co.uk Ltd: 3303609/2018.
APPLICATION
Sarah is wrong in her Act when it comes to Stephan and his demand. Equality Act, 2010 make
sure that the relation between the employer and employee should be in a rightful manner. No
inequality considered and hence, Sarah has to provide the required pre-requisites and have to pay

EMPLOYMENT LAW AND RELATIONS 10
for the medical treatment of Stephan and compensate for the entire expenses beard by him during
the course of employment as held in M. Czapkowicz v Amazon.co.uk Ltd. The employer has a
duty towards his or her employees of taking care of them in the workplace. Moreover, if any
demand by any of the employee can be fulfilled and is required then it has to be done urgently
rather denying all the things asked by the employee at the very first instance (Marinescu, 2011).
In the present case, Sarah is required to build a relationship, which based on trust and equality
that are the basic, no fundamental rights of a human being denied, and hence, Stephan is liable to
be compensating for all the happenings in the course of employment. In addition, Sarah should
ensure that after this no employee should have a problem like this and if it occurs then she should
not hire him or her from the very starting of the employment time as in the case of Lewisham v
Malcolm.
The Equality Act 2010 repealed many Acts such as the Disability Discrimination Act 1995and
the Race Relations Act 1976 that genuinely make sure that the consistency in employers along
with employees need to do to make their offices a fair atmosphere and in compliance with the
law (Robbins, et.al, 2005).
CONCLUSION
Thus, conclusion is that Stephan should compensated for the medical treatment and his demands
should be fulfilled as because usage of the earlier products will lead to more damage to his hands
and because he is suffering from a permanent disease happened because of prior products.

EMPLOYMENT LAW AND RELATIONS 11
CONCLUSION
In this case, the conclusion is that the employee can bring this as a ground for unfair dismissal
that the conduct was never bad or gross as employed in the same place from like four years.
Moreover, it can be stated that personal and professional life should not be mix and hence, a
person can do whatever he wants to unless the act is not a civil/criminal wrong in regards with
both the situation in Rushmore school. However, nothing happened and handed with a notice
without any verbal talk. No reasons or meeting held in order to hear Daniel and the inequality
with Stephen knowing that he had suffered from permanent skin disease was completely
unacceptable.
Any Act in the world in any country allows both the parties of a case a right to heard. Ex- parte
orders held in certain cases, not in the cases where the other person is available and not listened
to by anyone in the organization or whatsoever the workplace is. Daniel’s very first complaint
came and he asked to straight away, leave without any time given before leaving the job is liable
for the compensation and remedies mentioned above. And Stephen was asked to buy the things
required on his own was completely obnoxious, thus he has full right to ask for the compensation
and all the medical aid required for the treatment. The goodwill of a person also matters while
considering all the points regarding the expulsion of an employee. Every employee has personal
life/ privacy, which is separate from the work/ profession.

EMPLOYMENT LAW AND RELATIONS 12
REFERENCES
M Hopwood v Hampshire County Council and The Governing Body of Oak Lodge School
1402921/2018
N Vidini v Howells Legal Ltd and others: 1600969/2017.
Barnard, C. (2009) The UK and posted workers: the effect of commission v Luxembourg on the
territorial application of British labor law: case c-319/06 Commission v Luxembourg, judgment
19 June 2008. Industrial Law Journal, 38(1), pp.122-132.
Cannon v Poultry Harvesters Pty Ltd [2015] FWC 3126
Cole, G.A. (2004) Management theory and practice. Cengage Learning EMEA.
Edwards, P. (2009) Industrial relations: theory and practice. John Wiley & Sons.
Ewing, K.D. and Hendy Qc, J. (2012) Unfair dismissal law changes—unfair? Industrial Law
Journal, 41(1), pp.115-121.
Forth, J., Kersley, B.E., Lardies, C.A., Bryson, A., Bewley, H., Dix, G. and Oxenbridge, S.
(2013) Inside the workplace: findings from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey.
Hart, S.M. (2010) Self-regulation, corporate social responsibility, and the business case: Do
they work in achieving workplace equality and safety? Journal of Business Ethics, 92(4),
pp.585-600.

EMPLOYMENT LAW AND RELATIONS 13
Hills, J. (2010) An anatomy of economic inequality in the UK-report of the national equality
panel.
Kalleberg, A.L. (2000) Nonstandard employment relations: Part-time, temporary and contract
work. Annual review of sociology, 26(1), pp.341-365.
Kalleberg, A.L. (2009) Precarious work, insecure workers: Employment relations in
transition. American sociological review, 74(1), pp.1-22.
Knight, K.G. and Latreille, P. (2000) Discipline, dismissals and complaints to employment
tribunals. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38(4), pp.533-555.
Lee, D. (2000) An analysis of workplace bullying in the UK. Personnel review, 29(5), pp.593-
610.
Lewisham v Malcolm [2008] UKHL 43
Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union v Arnotts Biscuits Ltd [2010] FCA 770.
Lund v St Edmund’s School, Canterbury EAT/0514/12
M Czapkowicz v Amazon.co.uk Ltd: 3303609/2018
M Smith v XGAS Ltd: 1600270/2018.
Mantouvalou, V. (2008) Human rights and unfair dismissal: private acts in public spaces. The
Modern Law Review, 71(6), pp.912-939.
Marinescu, I. (2011) Are judges sensitive to economic conditions? Evidence from UK
employment tribunals. ILR Review, 64(4), pp.673-698.

EMPLOYMENT LAW AND RELATIONS 14
Robbins, W. and Voll, G. (2005) The case for unfair dismissal reform: A review of the
evidence. Australian Bulletin of Labour, 31(3), p.237.
Robert Mitcham v Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency: 1600939/2017
Sekander v Rocketmill Ltd (ET/2301645/2016).