In spite of this recommendation, workers are still being subjected to the inglorious instance of unfair dismissal based on sex, race, colour, religious affiliations, age, gender, political opinion, national or ethnic extraction and so on2. However, in the United Kingdom, the Employment Rights Act 1996 was promulgated to address all employment problems. But have common law judges been helpful in interpreting this statute? Has not better interpretation now relied on good practice with reference to Acas code of practice?
There are some provisions in Employment Rights Act 19963 that stipulate that workers in the United Kingdom should not be subjected to the inconvenient circumstance of unfair dismissal. The points below justify this assertion:
(a) Right to Fairness: Every employee, irrespective of his/her age, sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, religion and a host of other factors, is entitled to fairness in dismissal by his/her employer. This explains that any worker that has become victim of unconstitutional dismissal possesses the legal power to challenge such an action in the court of law.
(b) Contractual Stipulations: According to Employment Rights Act 1996, an employer may terminate the job of an employee if such conditions have already been included in the contracts both parties agreed upon at the onset of their industrial relationship: that is, if the term of employment has been described by a certain time limit, conditional limit etc.
(c) Pre-dismissal Notice: It is mandatory for employers to give workers a notice before their employment is summarily terminated. Failure to do this on the part of the employer constitutes illegality on the part of the employer.
Firms are expected to have in place provisions in their contracts that would allow nursing parents to be absent from effective working activities for a period of time. As a result of this, employers that rob their employees of this