Dismissal and redundancy

Much, much better Zainab. A proper heading that will help others decide whether they wish to read your question and my answer.

Looking at each in turn (although some are clearly more obvious that others!)

a) engaging in trade union activity – this is automatically unfair. Joining a trade union, taking part in union activities, even a refusal to join a union – these are all classed as unfair grounds for being dismissed

b) I’ll come back to

c) dismissal on transfer of employment to a new undertaking – surely common sense tells us that the employee has the right to choose the organisation for which they wish to work. To treat an employee as though they were a commodity to be bought and sold, or transferred, without their acquiescence flies directly in the face of the underlying principle of place of employment is the employee’s choice

d) redundancy – clearly if an employee is redundant, then dismissal won’t be unfair. There MAY be a claim that ‘redundancy’ a contrived excuse by the employer and would / could be disputed in a tribunal. But per se, redundancy is not automatically unfair.

Which leaves us with option b) – constructive dismissal. We’re in the situation where, for example, the employer doesn’t pay the employee, or they force the employee to make unreasonable changes to how they work (eg to work night shift when the employment contract is for day shift work) or the employer allows other employees to treat you unfairly by harassment or bullying.

BUT!!! The decision to terminate the employment is the decision of the employee (and, incidentally, that decision should be taken as soon as the employee feels that they are being constructively dismissed. To allow the new status quo to continue could be claimed by the employer to be the acceptance of the new situation by the employee)

The action to end the employment contract in options a), c) and d) is the action of the employer whereas the action for cessation caused by constructive dismissal is the decision of the employee. As for d) and the action by the employer, the situation is claimed by the employer to have been forced upon the employer as a result of an accumulation of circumstances leading to the employee being redundant

How’s that?

You’re very welcome

Zainab, sorry, but this should be on a new thread!

Taking each of the 4 possibles in turn:
1) True. The clue is in the wording. Remember, we’re talking about ‘wrongful’ dismissal suggesting that there is something ‘wrong’ in the form of the dismissal. And dismissal without giving ‘proper notice’ is clearly ‘wrong’! Therefore the statement is true.

2) For wrongful dismissal, the period of employment is irrelevant. Thus this statement is incorrect!

3) ‘Dismissal without justifiable reason’ follows the same reasoning as option 1) above. There’s not a proper reason for the dismissal and therefore the dismissal is wrongful. So the statement is not incorrect and is therefore not the answer to the stem question.

4) Same as option 2), it is correct that there is no minimum period of employment requirement. In cases of wrongful dismissal, period of employment is irrelevant.

So, in summary, your recollection about ‘2 years’ is incorrect. In fact, NO minimum period of employment is required. So the answer is NOT option 4). It’s option 2)! (Phew, that was lucky!)

OK?