Analysis of Unfair Dismissal Law: Capability and Misconduct Issues

This essay delves into the intricacies of unfair dismissal law within the United Kingdom, focusing on the critical aspects of capability and misconduct. It begins by outlining the foundational principles established by the Employment Rights Act 1996, emphasizing the requirement for employers to have a fair reason for termination. The essay explores the legal distinctions between wrongful dismissal and unfair dismissal, particularly concerning the necessity for prior warnings and adherence to contractual obligations. It examines how employee incapacity, including prolonged ill health and disability, is addressed within the framework of the law, highlighting the need for reasonable adjustments. Furthermore, the essay discusses misconduct as grounds for dismissal, including dishonesty and criminal suspicion, and references the case of Alan Druke vs. ASDA to illustrate these principles. It also emphasizes the importance of the ACAS Code of Practice in disciplinary procedures and its role in employment tribunals. The essay concludes by underscoring the potential legal ramifications for organizations that violate these codes, potentially leading to challenges under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

EXPLAIN THE MAIN REQUIREMENTS OF UNFAIR
DISMISSAL LAW IN RESPECT OF CAPABILITY AND
MISCONDUCT ISSUES.
1

Explain the main requirements of unfair dismissal law in respect of capability and
misconduct issues
Unfair dismissal with reference to the United Kingdom is a notable part of the Labor Laws of
UK, which mandates a reasonable and justified treatment for the employers in situations where
an employee could be terminated from the job (Howe, 2016). This norm is being regulated by the
Employment Rights Act 1996 Section 110 (C) Sub Section 1, which states that the employees
deserve a fair reason before he is being terminated (Davies, 2015). The termination procedure, if
done by breaching the contract of the employee without prior notice or warnings, can be
regarded as a wrongful dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996 Section 111(A) Sub
Section 2 (Davies, 2015). The employer needs to have some confirmation from the customers
and other staffs, before terminating the subject employee. The incapacity of an employee can be
determined based on his prolonged ill health despite not being misconduct. Therefore, the
dismissals cannot take place on any disciplinary ground, and the tribunals always keep an eye on
such instances (Howe, 2016). If the illness is a disability, the employer needs to make
adjustments that are rational in nature and beneficial for both the parties. In either case, the
employer needs to take care of not sabotaging the income protection of the employee, and needs
to keep the employee on the accounting books in order to keep the insurance active.
However the employee can be dismissed on the grounds of misconduct, such as the suspicion of
a crime where the employer only needs to believe the misconduct of the employee, rather than
establishing the fact. The investigations are bound to go on, but that too after the termination of
the employee (McCrystal, 2014). The employee can also be subjected to termination if the
colleagues are also not accepting his employment to be continued. Dishonesty is also another
ground which can lead to employee termination, which was evident from the case of Alan Druke
versus the Tribunal of ASDA in 2013, where the employee was found guilty of handling goods
from the third parties which were not involved within the accounting books of the company and
therefore, assumed to be a fraud (Millington, 2015).
There are many potential disciplinary and issues of grievances related to the termination of the
employee under unlawful circumstances, which are being mentioned in the Acas Code of
Practice (Millington, 2015). Employment tribunal’s needs to take the Acas Code of Practice into
consideration while judging rational cases related to termination of employees (McCrystal,
2014). The case of Alan Druke vs the Tribunal of ASDA had also seen the tribunal not taking
2

into consideration these codes of practice, while the jury in favor of the company (Millington,
2015) judged the investigation reports in a biased manner. This resulted in the unconventional
delay of providing judgments as the facts produced were not looked on properly.
This violation of Acas Codes are also considered to be a direct violation of the Employment
Rights Act 1996 Section 111 (A) Sub Section 2, and thus creates showcase threats for the
organizations once the case moves on to a higher court (McCrystal, 2014).
3

Reference List
Davies, A. C. L. (2015). The Employment Status of Clergy Revisited: Sharpe v Bishop of
Worcester. Industrial Law Journal, 44(4), 551-565.
Howe, J. (2016). Rethinking Job Security: A Comparative Analysis of Unfair Dismissal Law in
the UK, Australia and the USA. Taylor & Francis.
McCrystal, S. (2014). Industrial legislation in Australia in 2013. Journal of Industrial
Relations, 56(3), 331-344.
Millington, P. (2015). Employment Law 2015. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4