Disciplinary and Grievance Procedure - Case Study Example

According to British law, “Employees will be unfairly dismissed if their employer dismisses them (so selects them for redundancy when others in a similar circumstance were not selected) because they:

            … perform or propose to perform any functions they have as official or employer acknowledged health and safety representatives or committee members; or…” (Royden 2005)  The mandatory one-year tenure required before one can file a complaint of unfair dismissal does not apply in this instance.

            Di was employed as Director of Health and Safety. In the company’s advertisement for the post, she was to “play a key role in delivering cost-effective Health and Safety solution…” The circumstances that led to her dismissal imply that because of her actions, the managing director felt she failed to show the “appropriate” commercial awareness and lacked management skills. It would be proper to ask then what the managing director feels would be “appropriate” in terms of a Director of Health and Safety’s commercial awareness. The act of making a decision is an intangible process. Being granted the post of Director, Di was legally mandated to make decisions about Health and Safety. The way her mind came up with those decisions is not privy to anise unless she makes it otherwise. All that can be assumed is that she was making those decisions in the performance of the task she was hired to do. It would therefore be safe to assume that unless Di explicitly knew what “appropriate” commercial awareness meant to the company, she was then performing her task as Director of Health & Safety in what she supposed was the appropriate way.

2) Breach of Statutory Disciplinary Procedures

            “The standard disciplinary procedure means:

            * the employer must send a letter to the employee setting out the nature of the conduct, capability, or other circumstances, which have led the employer to contemplate dismissing them or taking disciplinary action. The employer must also include information based on the complaint.

            * The employer must then invite the employee to a meeting and, following the meeting, inform the employee about any decision that has been made. The employee must be offered the right to appeal.

            * in instances where the employee appeals, the employer must arrange a further meeting held by a more senior manager, where possible. Following the meeting the employer must  ,inform the employee of the final decision.” (Duncan 2005)

            In connection with the management of grievances and disciplinary issues, the Employment Act 2002 made essential and radical changes to amend relevant sections of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Breach of statutory disciplinary procedures means dismissals that do not follow these procedures will automatically be “unfair”. It also provides for an increase of between 10 and 50% in employment tribunal compensation.

            “The minimum levels of notice which an employer must normally give to an employee are laid down in the Employment Rights Act 1996 and depend on the length of time continuously employed, as follows:

            * Less than 4 weeks continuous employment – 24 hours’ notice

            * 4 weeks to 2 years continuous employment – 1 week’s notice

            * 2 years to 12 years continuous employment – 1 week’s notice for each complete year of continuous employment

            * more than 12 years continuous employment – 12 week’s notice” (Employment Dismissal)

            Since there is mention of only Di’s first week at work and none of when she was sacked, I am assuming the dismissal is less than the minimum required for the employer to give notice. There are exceptions to the 1-year rule and an example of one exception is the relation of Di’s job to Health and Safety.  From the provisions of the law, Di is justified in claiming that she was entitled to a warning or a notice before dismissal. Although tribunals may disregard failures by the employer to follow internal procedures, it is the burden of the employers to show that dismissal would still be the result after complying with the internal procedures. The company may claim gross misconduct on the part of Di.

            Given that she had been indecisive regarding the equipment order, missed several board meetings, and forgot to renew the company’s insurance, Di still must be allowed to explain herself before, if found remiss, being dismissed. Assuming there exists a contract between Di and Welwyn Widgets, the company is bound to honor it. Even if Di’s qualifications may be another reason for sacking her as it has been discovered that she didn’t meet the requirements of the position, I believe the fact that she was hired by the company, given her lack of qualifications, the latter was willing to take a risk and let her handle the job’s responsibilities. As such, they should not be so hasty in letting her go and should accord her the rights due to her as an employee of the company.