If they had dismissed Sam from the job without a sexual abuse complaint in the background, he would have definitely sued them for unlawful dismissal and they would have been forced to compensate him for the money and the career prospectus that he had lost due to their dismissal. As a grave charge of sexual assault is made here, Sam is unable to knock at the legal door. In any job, job security is of paramount importance without which the mental, physical wellbeing of the worker could be ruined combined with a disastrous career route. "The employee who loses his or her job in an economy which uses market exchanges to direct labour towards remunerative employment is immediately deprived of his or her major source of wealth, and will possibly suffer long-term impoverishment as a result of unemployment. At the same time the worker is excluded from the workplace which is likely to constitute a significant community in his or her life," Collins (1992, p.15).
The worker loses his dignity and self-confidence to find another job. Even he gets an alternative job; he would find it difficult to work freely in that post being haunted by the earlier unsavoury memories. There are psychological cases where the person was scarred for life. The importance of job security is so high that almost all the governments have chosen to pass as many laws as possible to create an atmosphere of security for the worker.
"This interpretation of the underlying justification of legislation against unfair dismissal suggests both why many legal systems have passed legislation which improves a worker's job security and why none of these laws goes so far as to grant the employee a property right in his or her job," Collins (1992, p.21).
Even though ideologically the Common Law proclaims that workers should be protected from unfair and wrongful dismissals, its position is seen to be weaker here mainly because the law has to respect the autonomy of the private sectors and maintain neutrality between conflicting interests. It also has to protect the equality of treatment of all the parties concerned, whereas the Employment tribunals have more power to hear the worker's side of the story.
There are many points here, which look suspicious and at the same time, they might work in Sam's favour if he decides to sue the company. He has not seen or read the complaint. He is unaware of the person who has made the complaint. A copy of the complaint, contrary to normal proceedings, was not given to him. He is not even definite if any such complaint exists at all.
There are a few mistakes that were committed by Sam. He did not demand for the copy of the complaint made against him. He did not explain to the company that he did not commit such an act. Being 'too shocked' cannot be carried on for many days. Before accepting the dismissal order, he did not ask the company to give reasons for dismissal in writing. It was his fault to accept the final salary without protest, because in any company, it is easier to fight with the management when the person is still an insider and more difficult as an outsider. His acceptance of the dismissal letter and the final payment could be presumed as admittance of guilt. It is still peculiar that the person who has charged him of sexual misconduct neither went to the police nor pursued the matter against Sam. Another intriguing factor here is why exactly the person