Empolyment low Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Empolyment low - Essay Example While she was on sick leave, it was alleged by the defendant that she continued to give her consultation to private patients. She was summarily dismissed for her gross misconduct for having received sick leave pay and also attended private patients. Aggrieved by this, she appealed to EAT claiming that the no due consideration was given by the NHS to any mitigating elements like any past untarnished records, employee’s long service or outcome of any dismissal. In this case, the tribunal was of the opinion that once gross misconduct had been demonstrated, dismissal must always within the ambit of adequate responses. However, the plaintiff appealed to EAT against tribunal findings on the ground that the employment tribunal should not have gone to a straight conclusion that dismissal is the punishment for the gross misconduct as it failed to give weight to any mitigating elements like past clear track record, length of employment and outcomes of any dismissal from the NHS. EAT con curred with her view that summary dismissal for a gross misconduct will be held void if no consideration has been given to other mitigating elements like employees past track record, length of service and the outcome of any dismissal. (Morris 2013). ... It should be demonstrated that the incident was examined, and satisfactory evidence was available for the misconduct and for the employee to be informed and to have a chance to challenge any accusation in a typical disciplinary process. In such cases, the conduct alleged had already been set out in the training book or employment contract; it would be advantageous for the employee to prove it to be a gross misconduct. Further, an appeal process should be established, and the employee should be given an opportunity to avail such an appeal process. (Fenwick & Kerrigan 2011:221) The meaning of the Reasonable The gravity and the nature of the offending demeanour will be seen at here. The tribunal will inquire whether the demeanour was so bad as to annihilate the association between the employee and the employer or did it just create irritation. If the demeanour of the employee was not significant like not attending the office at the right time, habitual absenteeism, the tribunal may view it as irrational for the employer to jump for the immediate dismissal without contemplating other actions or sanctions. (Fenwick & Kerrigan 2011:221) In BHS v Burchell, it was held that employer has to corroborate a rational faith in the guilt of the employee well before dismissing him, particularly in case of the alleged theft. However, John can suspend Smith and Freeman while they are under investigation. Both Smith and Freeman have to be questioned individually from each other. (Holland 2013:385) In Monie v Coral Racing Limited, there was disappearance of cash from the safe custody of the employer. The defendant could not decide which of the two employees who was responsible for the