An employee employed since 1997 tried to claim that she was unfairly and constructively dismissed in a case of Hughes v Gibson and Others [as Blanford House Surgery] [2006], but did not succeed.
At the beginning of June 2004, some comments were made in front of the employees, which made her show her employer that she intended to resign. On June 4, 2004, the employee's practice manager informed her in writing that her resignation was not accepted. Subsequently, on June 28, she withdrew her resignation.
She filed a complaint with the employer and received a letter from management on her complaint on October 29. The letter acknowledged some of her complaints and told her that some of her complaints could not be made and told her that she would meet next week so that the issues highlighted in her complaint could be further discussed.
Shortly after receiving the letter, she informed the management that she intended to seek a hearing at the Employment Court. On November 29, she resigned and claimed that she was dismissed unfairly and constructively. The arbitral tribunal held that the letter of October 29 did not properly handle the employee's complaint. The arbitral tribunal ruled that: -
§ This letter is part of a series of events
§ Trust and confidence between employees and employers have declined
§ The employee was actually dismissed unfairly and constructively.
However, the employer appears in the Employment Appeals Tribunal. The main question considered in the appeal was whether the arbitral tribunal mistakenly determined that the letter of October 29 was the last act required to implement the "last straw". In principle, she reaffirmed her labor contract even when she withdrew her resignation on June 28.
The appeal is allowed because of the last straw. To apply the principle, there must be more than one behavior that can be complained. The severity of the complaints are not important, as long as they accumulate they constitute a default.
Since the employee reiterated the contract when withdrawing his resignation, the arbitral tribunal was not suitable to use the "last straw". principle. Before withdrawing his resignation, he has considered any act before June 28, leaving only one act that can be complained - the letter of October 29. There is only one performance in the series of activities required for the last straw. The principle is that it cannot be applied here. Some people believe that the letter itself does not constitute unfair or constructive dismissal.
If you need more information, please contact us at enquiries@rtcoopers.com or visit http://www.rtcoopers.com/practice_employment.php
©RT COOPERS, 2007. This briefing does not provide a comprehensive or complete statement of the law on the issue in question, nor does it provide legal advice. It is only used to highlight general issues. Expert legal advice should always be provided for specific situations.
Orignal From: Employment Law - Unfair Dismissal and Constructive Dismissal - ' Last Straw' Principle
No comments:
Post a Comment