Sacking Employees for Asserting Their Statutory Rights is Always Unfair

Workers who exercise their entitlement to take a firm stand on their statutory rights may sadly be viewed askance by some employers. However, as an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling made plain, dismissing them for doing so is, as a matter of law, automatically unfair.

The case concerned an…

Oct 10, 2023

Markus spiske oo89 95auc0 unsplash 683x1024

Workers who exercise their entitlement to take a firm stand on their statutory rights may sadly be viewed askance by some employers. However, as an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling made plain, dismissing them for doing so is, as a matter of law, automatically unfair.

The case concerned an early-years practitioner who worked for a company that ran a pre-school. Various issues had arisen between her and a director of the company in respect of the calculation of her pay, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. She was ultimately summarily dismissed on the stated ground that she had committed repudiatory breaches of her employment contract.

After she launched proceedings, the ET noted that it was fair to say that allegations had been made on both sides and that the language of their correspondence had become increasingly forceful and emotive. The director did not appreciate being subject to challenge in respect of his calculations and viewed her pursuit of her rights in respect of her pay as insubordination.

Whilst expressing sympathy for the owner of a small business having to navigate the complexities of employment law, particularly during the pandemic, the ET found that the principal reason for her dismissal was her assertion of her statutory rights in relation to her wages. Her dismissal was thus automatically unfair within the meaning of Section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

In also upholding her wrongful dismissal claim, the ET found that the company had breached her contract by failing to pay her four weeks’ wages in lieu of notice. Unauthorised deductions had been made from her pay and pension contributions had been made at rates below her contractual entitlement. If not agreed, the amount of her compensation would be assessed at a further hearing.

Control Room Operator’s Angry Comment Lands Employer in Legal Hot Water

Angry comments uttered in a moment of workplace stress can very easily amount to harassment and land employers in legal hot water. That was certainly so in the case of a frustrated control room operator’s response to a Muslim worker’s reluctance to cover a shift during the Islamic festival of Eid. The operator, who worked for a security company, was under strain due to a staff shortage arising from the festival and was anxious to find a guard to cover a day shift. He contacted the worker, who…

Causation Issue Stymies Assaulted Teacher’s Personal Injury Claim

Employers are required to perform risk assessments and to have policies in place to ensure the reasonable safety of their staff. As a Court of Appeal ruling concerning a pupil’s assault on a teacher showed, however, it can be very difficult to prove that breaches of such duties have caused you injury. The assistant headteacher suffered a fractured cheekbone and psychiatric injuries when the agitated pupil punched him in the face without warning. In the light of the boy’s deteriorating…

EAT Upholds Dismissal of Racial Harassment Claim

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has rejected a man’s appeal against the dismissal of his claim for racial harassment on the grounds that the incident did not happen in the course of employment and that his employer had taken all reasonable steps to prevent it. The man worked for an NHS trust as branch secretary of a trade union. A colleague of his who had formerly been a member of the union went to his office during a break from work to discuss the fact that membership subscriptions were…