员工培训与开发

Am I protected against unfair dismissal.docAm I protected against unfair dismissal?Employees have the right not to be unfairly dismissed. In most circumstances you must have at least one year's continuous service before you can make a complaint to an employment tribunal. However, there is no length of service requirement in relation to 'automatically unfair grounds'. Also, the requirement is reduced to one month if you claim to have been dismissed on medical grounds as a consequence of certain health and safety requirements that should have led to suspension with pay rather than to dismissal.A complaint of unfair dismissal must be received by an employment tribunal within three months of the effective date of termination of the employment (usually the date of leaving the job) unless the tribunal considers this was not reasonably practicable. Time limits may also be extended where statutory procedures apply- subject to certain conditions.If both you and your employer agree, instead of going to an employment tribunal, the case may be heard by an arbitrator under the Acas Arbitration Scheme. If a tribunal establishes that a dismissal has taken place it is normally for your employer to show that it was for a fair reason and that they have, as a minimum, followed the statutory disciplinary procedures. In such cases the tribunal must then decide whether, in the circumstances, your employer acted reasonably in treating that reason as sufficient for dismissal.BBC newsreader loses claim for unfair dismissalPress Association, Friday 17 October 2003 02.47 BSTArticle historyThe veteran BBC newsreader Laurie Mayer lost a claim for unfair dismissal yesterday despite an employment tribunal upholding his complaint about a "culture of bullying" in one of the broadcaster's newsrooms.The 57-year-old presenter brought a case under whistleblowing legislation alleging that he had suffered detrimental treatment after highlighting problems in the newsroom in Tunbridge Wells, Kent.A reserved judgment made public yesterday set out the unanimous decision of the tribunal that he had "not been subjected to any detriment" and his claim for unfair dismissal was thus rejected.The former presenter of BBC South East Today told a tribunal in Ashford last month that he had paid a "personal price" for raising concerns about the treatment of journalists in the studio.Mayer said he complained to a senior manager about the "atmosphere of intimidation". His complaints culminated in a confrontation in June last year when he stormed out of the studio just before he was due to go on air.The tribunal's ruling stated: "This has been a sad case involving a much-respected broadcaster who went out on a limb to try to protect his colleagues from bullying and harassment. As a result, he found himself without a job... One of the more disturbing aspects of this case has been the way the BBC has sought, retrospectively, to blacken his name."Hospital chief awarded ?200k for unfair dismissalTash Shifrin, Wednesday 25 June 2003 12.27 BSTArticle historyA former hospital chief executive has been awarded more than ?200,000 by an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.In what is believed to be a first, Barbara Harris was awarded ?218,439 in a case against Royal United hospital Bath trust.Ms Harris was chief executive of the Somerset trust from 1993 until June 2001, when she was seconded as director of the NHS Leadership Centre - a scheme that aims to nurture senior mangers' careers and gives advice on appointing the most talented candidates.She stood down from the leadership centre post in December 2001, after a commission for health improvement report criticised the management style at Royal United. In May 2002, reviews of finances and waiting list data reported that there was evidence of waiting list manipulation at the trust and a projected financial deficit of ?17m.The trust, which remained Ms Harris's employer, terminated her contract on August 22 2002.The tribunal's chairman ruled that Ms Harris had been "sacrificed for the greater good of the organisation" and that the trust had treated her "with arrogance and contempt for her basic rights as an employee".The tribunal agreed that Ms Harris had been subjected to "an astonishing catalogue of unfairness" and had "no opportunity to prepare or present a case".The trust's allegations of serious neglect in relation to misreporting waiting list numbers were rejected by the tribunal.Ms Harris said: "I am glad that the unfairness and discrimination I have endured is now public and that, at the hearing, the trust finally acknowledged that they did not pursue allegations of personal misconduct against me."That an NHS trust showed no compassion and no regard for justice in this matter is not only ironic but is also a matter for public concern. I hope that lessons will be learned by the trust from this decision and that in future others will not be made a scapegoat for a trust's problems, as I was."Ms Harris's award for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, relating to depression, included ?6,124.27 for personal injury and a ?7,811.92 award against the trust for aggravated damages.The trust's chairman, Mike Roy, said he accepted the tribunal's finding that the trust had not fully followed the appropriate disciplinary procedures.The trust would review the full findings and "seek to learn any lessons that may be apparent", he said.Management of the zero-starred trust was set to be contracted out under the government's policy of "franchising" the management of failing trusts. But theprocess was abandoned in May, when Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire health authority, which is struggling to tackle a financial crisis across the Avon area, decided to take "a much more direct role" in running Royal United.Royle to sue for unfair dismissalDigg itDaniel Taylor, Wednesday 3 October 2001 02.38 BSTArticle historyJoe Royle's acrimonious departure from Manchester City is likely to culminate in the High Court after he issued a writ against his former employers claiming unfair dismissal and that he is owed another ?500,000 in severance pay.Royle was given a ?200,000 pay-off after being sacked in the wake of City's relegation to the First Division last season. However, the 52-year-old has employed a Manchester firm of solicitors to contest his case that it should have been around ?700,000. In papers lodged with the High Court Royle states he was dismissed without fair ground, namely that City were in a stronger position than when he took over and that he was not properly compensated."Being sacked by City and the manner of my dismissal was the worst experience of my career," he said. "The issues at stake are the level of settlement and unfair dismissal. But the matter is now in the hands of my solicitors and that is all I can say."Royle was only 12 months into a four-year contract after guiding City to the Premiership in successive seasons. His wages varied significantly depending on which division the club were in.Even though City's relegation had already been confirmed, he is claiming that at the time he was sacked he was still technically a Premiership manager. It is understood the club calculated his pay-off as though he were earning First Division wages - taking a 65% pay cut.David Bernstein, the City chairman, declined to comment, other than to say "clearly the club will strongly defend this unnecessary action".The Aston Villa striker Dion Dublin's red card for an incident in the match against Southampton last month has been rescinded by the Football Association.The Villa manager John Gregory had accused the Southampton defender Taher el Khalej of cheating to get Dublin sent off when the clubs met at St Mary's on September 24. Spurs' manager Glenn Hoddle says the club's record signing Sergei Rebrov is going nowhere despite speculation linking him with a move to Italy.Hoddle has reaffirmed his belief that the Ukrainian striker has a major role to play at the club even though he is reportedly being trailed by Lazio and AC Milan. Rebrov, an ?11msigning a year ago, has yet to start a Premiership match this season and is rumoured to be unhappy but Hoddle has insisted there is no problem.A move to Italy is unlikely at this stage as the transfer window has closed until the end of the year."I am sure Sergei will be playing a big part in this club and I have told him that," said Hoddle. "It is a long, hard season and I have had a chat with Sergei. I am sure he is going to contribute to this club in a big way."Spurs, meanwhile, have been given permission to redevelop their East Stand but have not ruled out the possibility of leaving White Hart Lane.Haringey Council have approved plans for a new three-tier structure which will increase the stadium capacity to 44,000 from 36,238.However, the club insist that, before they commit to what would be a major investment, they are looking to the local authority to improve the club's environment, otherwise they will continue with their search for alternative locations.· You've read the piece, now have your say. Email your comments, as sharp or as stupid as you like, to the football.editor@'Rabbi row' cook wins claim for unfair dismissal, Friday 26 July 2002 01.57 BSTArticle historyA cook who was sacked by a caterers after allegedly throwing food over a rabbi duringa Jewish wedding, won his claim for unfair dismissal at an employment tribunal yesterday.Abad Amash, 36, an Arab Israeli, from Golders Green, north London, had worked at the ultra Orthodox Jewish Reich's Caterers in Golders Green for 10 years, the tribunal heard. He worked up to 100 hours a week for ?250 preparing food for bar mitzvahs and other Jewish festivals.But he lost his job after allegedly stealing and drinking a bottle of whisky and throwing a tray of food over a rabbi during a wedding.Nachman Reich, owner of the caterers, told the tribunal in central London that Mr Amash would steal from work and was constantly drunk.He said he employed Mr Amash as a casual working one or two days a week and had warned him "hundreds of times" about his conduct. He also alleged Mr Amash "smothered" a rabbi in food after a row during a Jewish wedding.But Mr Amash, speaking through an Arabic interpreter, denied throwing the tray of food or drinking at work or stealing. He said he only had a verbal disagreement with the rabbi.He claimed unfair dismissal after being sacked on March 24 and claimed deductions were unfairly made from his wages and that he should have been entitled to holiday and sick pay.Nicola Walker, chairwoman of the tribunal panel, ruled that Mr Amash clearly was a full-time employee and entitled to holiday and sick pay. She also ruled he had been unfairly dismissed.She said: "There were considerable inconsistencies in Mr Reich's evidence. If this employee was so outrageous as Mr Reich alleges, then why did he get regular employment?" Mrs Walker ordered Mr Amash to be paid ?250 wages which had been deducted from his pay.A separate hearing on September 4 will decide how much holiday and sickness pay he is entitled to. It is believed to be around ?2,500.Press Association'I want to sue for unfair dismissal'Each week we advise on readers' problemsNeasa MacErleanThe Observer Sunday 12 September 1999Article historyQ: I have just been sacked by my boss after 10 years of working for him as a hairdresser. I want to sue for unfair dismissal and think I will stand a good chance.I have been told that as I was paid cash-in-hand, the company didn't pay any tax to the Revenue, and this could cause me problems. Is this true?A: It sounds as though your boss has been running your employment contract illegally - by failing to meet its PAYE obligations.This may prevent you from relying on your statutory rights (such as bringing an unfair dismissal case), but only if you knew about the illegality or participated in it. In a similar case, the Employment Appeal Tribunal said that the test was whether the employee actually knew of the employer's deception, not merely whether he or she should have known.So your ability to bring your unfair dismissal claim will depend mainly on whether you knew (from your year-end P60 form, for instance) that your boss was not paying any income tax to the Inland Revenue. If you genuinely thought he was paying tax - and the Tribunal believes you - you should be all right.Incidentally, if you think you may have been sacked because of your sex, you may still be able to bring a sex discrimination claim, even if you knew of the tax fraud. Source of legal advice: 'Employment Case Law: the Impact on HR Managers', a practical casebook written by Lewis Silkin, and published by Gee. Copies available on 0171 393 7666.ABC News defends itself against unfair dismissal claimClaire Cozens, Monday 26 September 2005 18.03 BSTArticle historyABC News' demand for foreign news increased dramatically in the wake of the September 2001 terrorist attacks, the head of the US broadcaster's London bureau said today.Speaking on the second day of an unfair dismissal case brought by former ABC News correspondent Richard Gizbert, Marcus Wilford said the demands on his team had increased following the attacks.The ABC News' executive said it had become clear in 2002 that Mr Gizbert was no longer interested in covering this kind of story and was happier covering what he described as "feature stories", which Mr Wilford said had become "anachronistic".The tribunal heard that the London bureau acted as a central hub for ABC News' increased coverage of the Middle East with correspondents being sent to Iraq and Afghanistan, sometimes for long periods of time."Since 9/11 there has been much greater demand in the US for in-depth reporting of foreign news ... this has increased the pressure on the resources available to me, the bureau chief," Mr Wilford said."The principal call on our resources had come to be from Afghanistan and Iraq." Mr Gizbert is suing ABC News for unfair dismissal after his contract with the network was terminated in July 2004. He claims he was sacked for refusing to travel to war zones in breach of UK employment laws on health and safety. He is suing the network for ?2.3m.Mr Wilford today acknowledged that many of the regions covered by ABC's London bureau were "places where circumstances are to a greater or lesser extent unstable" such as Israel and Caucasian Russia.Mr Wilford explained how in 2002 the network agreed to employ Mr Gizbert on a freelance basis, guaranteeing him a hundred days' work a year to fill in at the London bureau when the three full-time correspondents were not there. But he said the arrangement had not worked out as well as he had hoped because he could not rely on Mr Gizbert to be available whenever he wanted as he could with a staff journalist. He described how Mr Gizbert would sometimes refuse assignments because, for example, he had concert tickets. A staff journalist, he said, would have to arrange time off in advance."The demand was increasingly for lengthy periods in the field. (As a result) I came to the view that I could no longer accommodate Richard's requirements," he said."We needed a full-time correspondent, someone who was consistently available, who got up in the middle of the night to go to the scene of an earthquake or a terrorist attack ... my ideal would have been a full-time correspondent and we didn't have that we had a part-time correspondent."Asked whether he had mentioned Mr Gizbert's unwillingness to travel to war zones as a reason for dismissing him, Mr Wilford replied that he could not recall whether he had done so but that his expectation was that Mr Gizbert's successor would be prepared to travel to dangerous places.He said the nature of modern television news "requires journalists to be as close to the action as possible". But he said ABC took journalists' safety very seriously, employing former special forces' personnel as safety advisers and sending correspondents on hostile environment training courses.ABC News denies it sacked Mr Gizbert for refusing to go to war zones, saying the decision was down to budget cuts.The case continues with Mr Gizbert and Martin Bell, the former BBC war correspondent, expected to give evidence this week.· To contact the MediaGuardian newsdesk email editor@ or phone 020 7239 9857· If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".Pensioners fail to breach unfair dismissal age barrierPhillip Inman, Saturday 4 September 2004 01.23 BSTArticle historyTwo pensioners who were sacked by their employer failed yesterday to overturn a court ruling that denied them the right to claim unfair dismissal and redundancy pay.A court of appeal judgment said the men had failed to prove that employment rights extended beyond the state retirement age.The ruling overturns an employment tribunal decision in favour of the pensioners. Under current laws, over-65s are not eligible for redundancy payments or protectedfrom unfair dismissal.Lawyers acting for John Rutherford and Samuel Bentley said they would need time to study the judgment but would consider asking the court leave to appeal to the House of Lords.The dispute, which has been going on for more than five years, began when Mr Rutherford, from Essex, and Mr Bentley, from Islington, north London, were dismissed from their jobs in the clothing industry. Both were in their 70s.They argued UK laws discriminated against men, who were affected more by lack of employment protection than women. The laws amounted to sex discrimination, they said, and were in breach of EU equal pay legislation which should apply in their case.The employment tribunal supported the case but the Department of Trade and Industry appealed, and a review last year threw out the argument. Mr Rutherford and Mr Bentley went to the court of appeal in March and learned of its judgment yesterday. Pensioner groups said they were dismayed the government did not see the case as a chance to end what they believe is ageism in the workplace.Gordon Lishman, director-general of Age Concern England, said: "This judgment is a kick in the teeth for older people in work. The outcome of this appeal means that age discrimination remains acceptable in the workplace, denying employment rights to all those working beyond 65."The future of older people's rights and choices at work now hangs in the balance. But the government has a chance to rectify its actions. If it is bold it will deliver equality for people of all ages by scrapping mandatory retirement ages and offering full employment protection to all workers."Other groups, including the Employers。