UK
EMPLOYMENT LAW: Unfair
Dismissal
Within the UK's employment law, unfair dismissal is one area that interests me a lot. This is
because it involves the protection of employees from termination without just
cause. In essence, the balance between employee rights protection and providing
employers with the flexibility to manage their workforce is a central theme in the
UK employment law.
Similarly, this area of employment law is interesting due to the complexities
and nuances that come with it. According to Cabrelli, it involves nuanced and
complex legal principles, for instance, the determination of whether or not a
dismissal is fair relies on different factors, including the circumstances of
the case, the procedure followed by the employer and the reasons for dismissal. This makes unfair
dismissal a challenging yet intellectually stimulating area of law.
Furthermore, it is a dynamic area with a substantial and continually changing
body of case laws. This is because the interpretation and application of law in
this area are greatly shaped by the decisions of higher courts and tribunals,
which provide a rich, diverse source of precedence and legal arguments. Last and perhaps more
importantly, this area has a human element, dealing with real individual’s
lives and livelihoods.
Consequently,
the developments in this area of law have been marked by evolving workplace
practices, legislative changes and legal rulings. First, in terms of changing
workplace practices, the shift to hybrid and remote work models has raised new
issues concerning employment practices and the application of unfair dismissal
laws. For instance, employers
have had to navigate issues associated with performance monitoring and how to
handle disciplinary issues to ensure dismissals are fair. Similarly, growing
awareness of mental health issues has compelled employment tribunals to take
into account how mental health impacts unfair dismissal claims. However, the COVID-19
pandemic also saw the introduction of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme
(furlough) to help employers impacted by coronavirus to retain their employees,
bringing unique considerations and challenges to unfair dismissal cases.
Secondly,
in terms of legislative changes, the UK government introduced the Good Work
Plan in 2018 following the 2017 Review of Modern Working Practices by Tylor and
colleagues. This plan’s main aim was to improve the rights of workers and
clarify employment statuses. This included measures
like extending the right to a written statement of terms and conditions to every
employee to ensure fair treatment in the workplace. It also increased penalties
for employers who commit aggravated breaches of employment law. Similarly,
another legislative change was the introduction of parental bereavement leave
and pay in 2020, providing parents with the right to two weeks' leave. This would apply in
circumstances where they have suffered a stillbirth after 24 weeks of pregnancy
or lost a child under the age of 18. Therefore, this can impact the
consideration of dismissal under such situations.
Thirdly,
when it comes to legal rulings, one of the most prominent rulings is Uber BV v Aslam (2021), where the
Supreme Court determined the employment status of Uber drivers. In its ruling, the court
stated that Uber drivers were not independent contractors but workers and thus
entitled to basic employment rights. These rights included protection from
dismissal without just cause. This ruling greatly affected the gig economy,
forcing the sector’s employers to re-examine their worker classification and
overall employment practices. There were also other earlier rulings, such as
Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti
(2019), where the court ruled that a dismissal would be unfair if based on manipulated
evidence from another manager. In Independent Workers Union of Great Britain (IWGB) v RooFoods Ltd (t/a
Deliveroo) (2017), the court ruled that Deliveroo riders were not employees
but independent contractors, highlighting the importance of the right to substitution
when determining employment status. In its ruling in Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher (2011), the
Supreme Court stated that car valeters were employees rather than independent
contractors and pointed out that tribunals need to look past the written
contract to the reality of the working relationship, including factors like
mutual
obligations, integration, and control. Similar findings were
also made in Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith
(2018), where the court not only ruled that the plaintiff was a worker but also
emphasised the need to consider personal service and the extent of control an
employer exercises.
However,
employment tribunals have refined the interoperation of unfair dismissal laws.
This can be observed in cases such as Addison
Lee Ltd v Mr C Gascoigne (2018), where the Employment Appeal
Tribunal ruled that private hire drivers were workers, not
independent contractors. This aligns with the
principles created by earlier cases as it emphasised the importance of personal
service and control in determining worker status. Similar rulings were made in Dewhurst v CitySprint UK Ltd (2017),
where the tribunal emphasised the actual working conditions and the degree of
control in determining employment status.
In
conclusion, unfair dismal is an interesting area of UK law due to its complexities
and nuances and importance in employee protection. However, it has also
experienced various changes and influences including hybrid and remote work
models, awareness of mental health issues, and the introduction of the
Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (furlough). It has also undergone several influential
legislation like the Good Work Plan 2018 and parental
bereavement leave 2018 and legal changes like Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti (2019), among others.
Table of legislations
Work Plan 2018
Parental Bereavement Leave 2018
Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (furlough) 2020.
Table of Case Laws
Addison Lee Ltd v Gascoigne [2018] UKEAT/0289/17
Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41
Dewhurst v Citysprint UK Ltd ET/220512/2016 (05 January 2017)
Independent Workers Union of Great Britain (IWGB) v RooFoods Ltd (t/a Deliveroo) (2017) 11 WLUK 313
Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith [2018] UKSC 29
Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti [2019] UKSC 55
Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5
References
Bogg, A. 2018. The Common Law Constitution at Work: R (on
the application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor. The Modern Law
Review, 81(3), pp.509-526.
Cabrelli, D. 2020. Employment Law in Context.
Collins, P. M. 2022. Putting Human Rights to Work:
Labour Law, the ECHR, and the Employment Relation. Oxford University Press.
Davidov, G., and Eshet, E. 2015. Intermediate Approaches to
Unfair Dismissal Protection. Industrial Law Journal, 44(2),
pp.167-193.
Ford, M. 2018. Employment Tribunal Fees and the Rule of Law: R
(Unison) v Lord Chancellor in the Supreme Court. Industrial
Law Journal, 47(1), pp.1-45.
Mantouvalou, V. 2008. Human Rights and Unfair Dismissal: Private
Acts in Public Spaces. The Modern Law Review, 71(6),
pp.912-939.
Taylor, M. 2017. Good work: The Taylor review of modern
working practices.