Employment Practice

Key points §   When an employee first starts work with an employer, he (or she) is entitled to receive a written statement containing specified particulars of the terms and conditions of his employment. The written statement (often inaccurately described as the 'contract of employment') must include particulars of any disciplinary rules the employee will be expected to observe during the course of his employment. Alternatively, the statement must refer the employee to some other document (such as a staff handbook) that is 'conveniently accessible' to him and that explains those rules or standards of conduct (section 1(3), Employment Rights Act 1996). §   The duty to include a note specifying disciplinary rules does not apply to rules or procedures relating to health or safety at work, although there is nothing to prevent an employer outlining such rules ( ibid. section 3(2)). §   The written statement or handbook (or whatever) must also give the name or job title of th

Key points §   'Lack of qualifications' is one of the permitted (or legitimate) reasons for dismissal listed in section 98(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The expression qualifications means any degree, diploma or other academic, technical or professional qualification relevant to the position that a dismissed employee held ( ibid. section 98(3)(b)). §   Although an employee can legitimately be dismissed for not having the qualifications needed to do his (or her) job, that is not necessarily an end to the matter. What an employment tribunal must decide is whether the dismissal was fair. Given the particular circumstances (including the size and administrative resources of his undertaking) did the employer act reasonably or unreasonably in treating the employee's lack of qualifications as a sufficient reason for dismissing him? That question, says section 98(4) of the 1996 Act, shall be determined 'in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case&

Key points If an employee is dismissed on grounds of incompetence, the question whether his (or her) dismissal was fair or unfair will depend on whether, in the circumstances (including the size and administrative resources of his business or undertaking), the employer had acted 'reasonably' in treating incompetence as a sufficient reason for dismissing that employee; and that question shall be determined in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case (section 98, Employment Rights Act 1996). Incompetence (or lack of capability) is a legitimate reason for dismissing an employee. In the Court of Appeal decision in Taylor v Alidair Limited [1978] IRLR 82, Lord Denning commented: 'Whenever a man is dismissed for incapacity or incompetence, it is sufficient that the employer honestly believes on reasonable grounds that the man is incapable or incompetent. It is not necessary for the employer to prove that he is in fact incapable or incompetent.&

Key points §   Sections 104 and 105 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 protect employees who are dismissed (or selected for redundancy) for complaining that their employer has infringed one or other of their statutory rights in employment. The dismissal of an employee in such circumstances will be treated as automatically unfair if the reason for it (or, if more than one, the principal reason) was that the employee: a.      had brought proceedings against his (or her) employer to enforce a right of his that is a relevant statutory right; or b.     alleged that the employer had infringed a right of his (or hers) that is a relevant statutory right . Furthermore, an employee dismissed in such circumstances may present a complaint of unfair dismissal to an employment tribunal regardless of his (or her) age or length of service at the material time ( ibid. sections 108 and 109). §   It is as well to point out that such a dismissal will be treated as unfair even if the employee was not ent