To what extent do the statutory provisions governing unfair dismissal provide an effective right not to be unfairly dismissed? When looking at the statutory provisions that are aimed at preventing unfair dismissal it is necessary to firstly define what would be classed as unfair dismissal and then to examine the various statutes and regulations that have been implemented to try to prevent employers from unfairly dismissing an employee. Having established all of these it is then possible to examine the effectiveness of the provisions and reach a conclusion as to how effective these are. Unfair dismissal occurs where the employer dismisses an employee without good reason. An unfair dismissal can be automatically unfair. Such a dismissal is deemed to have occurred where the employer has not followed a proper dismissal procedure before dismissing the employee. An automatic unfair dismissal can occur where an employee is dismissed because she is pregnant, the employee was attempting to enforce a right under law or an employee was taking action against the company on a health and safety issue.
Where an automatic unfair dismissal occurs for one of the reasons listed above the requirement that the employee must have been employed for a last a year does not apply. In cases where the employee has refused to work on a Sunday or was taking action in trade union activities or was dismissed for blowing the whistle on another employee the year rule has often been overlooked. A dismissal will also be automatically unfair if it is as a result of the business that the employee has worked for being taken over by a new owner, although this would still require the employee to have worked for the employer for at least a year. Similarly dismissing an employee for failing to declare a spent conviction would be automatically unfair and an action could be brought by the employee for such a dismissal. If an employee can show that their dismissal was connected to their race, gender, or some form of disability then a claim for unfair dismissal is likely to succeed. These categories of employees are protected by various Acts designed to protect them from being treated unfairly in the workplace. The introduction of such anti-discrimination legislation
 and the culture of challenging any dismissal that might be potentially unfair have produced an abundance of case law on unfair dismissal. The recent changes in employment law have attempted to prevent unfair dismissal by placing statutory requirements on an employer before he can dismiss someone. Previous legislation used to regard the employee more as a servant to the employer than a contributing member of the workforce. Over the years employment law has looked at protecting the rights of employees and attempted to ensure equal treatment for all employees on every issue including working hours, working conditions and equal pay. Membership of the European Union has impacted on the areas of working hours
 and equal pay between the sexes.
Where an employee has been treated unfairly in theses areas actions have frequently been brought before the European Court for Human Rights. Many of these actions have been on the grounds of sex discrimination, disability discrimination or race discrimination. As well as anti-discriminatory legislation assisting employees from being unfairly dismissed there are also many other statutory provisions now in place designed to protect an employee from unfair dismissal.
Under the Employment Rights Act 1996 section 94 and employee has the right not to be unfairly dismissed. Where an employer does decide to dismiss an employee a duty is placed on the employer under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to prove that the dismissal was fair. Potentially fair reasons for dismissal include the capability of the person to be able to do the job or their qualification for that role. A dismissal can also be potentially fair if the employee is dismissed for behaving in an inappropriate manner, as a result of redundancy, the employee is involved is some form of legal process such as a driver who loses his right to drive through some form of proceedings against him or any other substantial reason for the dismissal.Although these are potentially fair reasons for dismissal they can give rise for a claim for unfair dismissal if the employer fails to take the proper steps before dismissing them. Where an employer proposes to dismiss an employee on the grounds of capability or qualifications the employer has a duty to consult with the employee and any line manager or supervisor responsible for that employee. The employee would have to be given every opportunity to reach the required standard. Before moving to a dismissal an employer should ensure that the employee has been offered any suitable training that might assist the employee in reaching the standard. If an employee makes a specific request for training in a particular aspect of their role and the employer does not provide this training a claim for unfair dismissal might be able to be brought against the employer. When dealing with dismissals for inappropriate behaviour an employer is under a duty to follow the company’s disciplinary procedure to ensure that all efforts have been made to curb the behaviour of the employee. When an employee commences work with a new employer they should be supplied with an employment contract. This contract should give an outline of what would be considered inappropriate behaviour. Within the contract should be information regarding the company policy in dealing with such issues. Where an employer proposes on dismissing an employee for inappropriate behaviour they should remind the employee of the company policy and explain how the employee’s behaviour has breached this policy. An opportunity should be given to the employee to alter their behaviour and to attain the standard required by the company. If after being given the opportunity to amend their behaviour the employee still continues to behave in the same manner an employer would be able to dismiss the employee and would be unlikely to bring an action for unfair dismissal. Dismissal as a result of redundancy can cause problems on the basis of selection for redundancy. To try to avoid a claim for unfair dismissal an employer should explore all the other options available to them including the possibility of the redeployment of the employee in an alternative role. To make redundancies there has to be good sound business reasons to remove the post that the employee has been engaged in. When selecting employees for redundancy an employer should ensure that the selection has been handled fairly. Claims for unfair dismissal might arise if the company dismissed a female employee in preference to a male employee because they preferred to have a man in that role. Actions for unfair dismissal in these instances would centre on sex discrimination. Similar actions could occur using the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 if an able bodied employee is chosen over a disabled employee. A further area in which unfair dismissal might be claimed is if the employer dismisses the employee as a result of criminal charges being brought against the employee. Employers should bear in mind that someone charged with an offence might not necessarily be found guilty of the charges against them and a dismissal before the outcome of the case is known could give rise to a claim for unfair dismissal. On some occasions employers have suspended the employees from work when they have been made aware that criminal charges have been brought against an employee. The effect of such a suspension could impact on the case against the employee as a jury might be influenced by the actions of the employer in assuming the guilt of the employee.
The suspension might suggest to a jury that the employer believes the employee to be guilty. Such a dismissal before a trial is likely to give rise to a claim for unfair dismissal as the employer would appear to be making an assumption of guilt before the employee has been to court. Where the offence involves a driving offence and the employee was employed as a driver the employer might be left with no alternative but to dismiss the employee as they can no longer carry out the job they were employed to do. In such circumstances an employer should attempt to redeploy the employee elsewhere within the company until they are entitled to drive again before considering terminating their employment. If no such alternative work is available then the employer would be justified in terminating the employment and it is unlikely that any claim for unfair dismissal would succeed as the employee has effectively made himself unemployable by getting a banned from driving. The Employment Act 2002 has brought in a number of amendments to the ways in which an employer should proceed before they dismiss an employee. Schedule II of the Act lists two ways in which an employer can proceed towards dismissal. In Chapter 1 of the Schedule the standard dismissal procedure is divided into three stages that an employer should comply with before dismissing an employee. This has been defined as the Dismissal and disciplinary procedure. In the first stage 1(1) the employer must set out in writing the employee’s alleged conduct or characteristics, or other circumstances, which lead him to contemplate dismissing or taking disciplinary action against the employee and (2) must send the statement or a copy of it to the employee and invite the employee to attend a meeting to discuss the matter. The second stage of the process is the meeting. A meeting should take place before any disciplinary action is taken unless the employee is to be suspended from work. The meeting should only take place if the employee has 2 (2) (a) been informed what the basis was for including in the statement under paragraph 1(1) the ground or grounds given in it, and (b) the employee has had a reasonable opportunity to consider his response to that information. Having been given the appropriate notice and grounds for the dismissal (3) the employee must take all reasonable steps to attend the meeting. Directly after the meeting the employee should be notified of the decision made by the employer. At this point the employee must be informed of his right to appeal if he disagrees with the decision. Where the employee does disagree with the decision an appeal should be lodged by the employee. The employee has a duty to notify his employer of his intention to appeal and another meeting must be arranged between the employee and the employer. Employees have a duty to ensure they take all the necessary steps to attend the meeting. At this stage an employer can dismiss or suspend the employee before the second meeting occurs. As with the first meeting the employee must be informed of the employers’ decision immediately after the meeting is concluded. The second way in which a dismissal can operate is under a modified procedure as outlined in Schedule II. Under the modified procedure the employer has dismissed the employee before the meeting takes place.
The employer has a duty to outline the reason for the dismissal to the employee and advise them of their right to appeal that decision. If an employee chooses to appeal then a meeting will be held with the employer giving the employee his decision at the end of the meeting. Section 30 of the Dispute Resolutions is concerned with contracts of employment. This section of the Act requires both the employee and the employer to comply with the procedures for dismissal where such statutory requirements are necessary. Under this regulation employers have a duty to issue in writing the reasons why they are considering terminating the employment and invite the employee to either attend a meeting to discuss this before the dismissal is enacted or inform the employee of the right to appeal and then hold a meeting if the employee wishes to appeal. If there is no statutory requirement to follow such procedures then the employee would not be able to enforce the procedure. Situations such as this could arise where the company operates a policy of issuing two verbal warnings followed by one written warning before the employee can be dismissed. The employer can avoid the verbal and written warning stage if the conduct of the employee is such that instant dismissal is warranted.
There is no statutory requirement to issue such warnings despite this sometimes being incorporated into a contract of employment. A failure to give such warnings would not allow an employee to assert his rights under the contract. The disciplinary procedures listed above where introduced by the Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolutions) Regulations 2004. The aim of these Regulations was to reduce the number of dismissals where there might have been alternative ways to avoid such dismissals. The Dispute Regulations added amendments to the Employment Act 2002 making it a direct requirement that all employers must have a disciplinary procedure in place that meets the requirements as laid down by the Regulations. These Regulations are applicable to all employers regardless of the size the company is and can be applied even if the company only has one employee. The procedures listed under section 3 of the Dispute Resolutions Regulations have to be adhered to before an employee can be dismissed. Where an employee feels they have been unfairly dismissed the Regulations provide the employee with guidance on brining a grievance procedure against their employer under section 6 of the Regulations. In situations where the employer is proposing on taking an action which if carried out could allow the employee to bring a complaint in an employment tribunal the standard grievance procedure is applicable. A modified grievance procedure is applied if the employee has already been dismissed. The employer is able to avoid the requirements of the Dismissal and disciplinary procedure under certain circumstances these being that they reasonably believe that doing so would result in a significant threat to themselves, any other person, or their or any other person’s property, they have been subjected to harassment and reasonably believe that doing so would result in further harassment, because it is not practicable within a reasonable period, they dismiss a group of employees but offer to re-engage them on or before termination of their employment, there are collective redundancies and they consult with employee representatives, the business closes down suddenly because of an unforeseen event or the employee is no longer able to work because they are in breach of legal requirements. The times when an employer can avoid having to adhere to the disciplinary and dismissal procedures are listed in section 11 of the Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolutions) Regulations 2004. It is obvious that the areas highlighted above where the dismissal and disciplinary procedure can be circumvented should be treated in this manner. It would be unconscionable to expect an employer to have to allow an employee to continue in their employment when there could be a significant threat to themselves or others or where they have been subjected to harassment by the employee. It is also obvious that where the company is closing down that redundancy will be inevitable and it would be impossible to avoid making employees redundant. Other areas of legislation designed to protect employees for unfair dismissal include the Employment Rights Act 1996. This Act specifically deals with employment contracts and requires employers to give new employees a written statement concerning the particulars of their employment. The written statements should include the names of both the employee and the employer, the date when the employment began and the date when the employee’s continuous employment began taking into account any past employment with a previous employer that might count towards continuous service. The statement should also outline the rate of pay of the employee, the contractual hours the frequency of pay, entitlement to holidays, sick pay, maternity leave and pension schemes and the period of notice the employee is required to give when leaving that employment. A brief description of the specifications of the role should be included so that the employee knows the tasks they are expected to perform. Employers could find this part of the contract useful if they need to dismiss an employee for being incapable of performing the duties they are required to do. They could also use this part of the contract if the employees work is not up to standard or if they are refusing to do a particular task by relying on the contract they could prove that the employee was aware of the standard required and the role requirements from the start of their employment. The disciplinary procedures should also be contained within the written statement or should refer them to specific documents that specify such rules.
Such documents have to be easily accessible so that an employee knows of their rights should disciplinary action be commenced against them. Where an employee has been dismissed or is about to be dismissed they have a right to bring grievance procedures. The grievance procedure that has been established as a result of the Regulations has meant that it is now more difficult for an employer to be able to dismiss an employee. Those wishing to bring a grievance are under a duty to bring an action without delay.
The meeting to discuss the grievance must be arranged at a reasonable time and suitable location for all parties. At the meeting both parties must be allowed to explain their case. If the employee is bringing an appeal against an earlier decision then the meeting should be chaired by a more senior manager then previously if at all possible. Employees can choose to be accompanied at the meeting or any subsequent appeal. The meeting should accommodate the needs of the employee so that they are not disadvantaged. This is particularly relevant where the employee is disabled. The Regulations do allow a delay on some occasions in particular where a grievance action cannot be brought swiftly due to illness, incapacity or the cessation of the employer’s business.
Neither party will be held to be at fault if one of the above applies. A meeting must be rearranged if the employer, employee or employee’s companion cannot attend a meeting for a reason that was not reasonably foreseeable at the time the meeting was arranged. Occasions where this might arise could be if one of the parties becomes ill or their car breaks down on the way to the meeting. If the failure to attend the meeting is for a reason that is reasonably foreseeable then neither party will be under any further statutory obligation to arrange a further meeting. Any compensation awarded by a tribunal could be affected by the failure of the party to attend the meeting. If the employee fails to attend the compensation could be reduced whereas if the employer fails to attend the compensation could be increased. Where the employee’s companion cannot attend the employee must propose an alternative date within five days. If this is acceptable to the employer then he should invite all parties to attend on the new date. An employer is obliged to rearrange a meeting once. If the meeting falls through a second time then neither party is under a statutory obligation to rearrange for a further meeting, even if the reason for the non-attendance at the second meeting is unforeseeable. The Regulations have also impacted on being able to extend time limits for the bringing of tribunal proceedings. The Regulations allow for such an extension: If an employee attempts to present a tribunal application arising from a grievance within the normal time limit for doing so under the relevant jurisdiction, but he/she has not written the step one letter under the procedure and allowed twenty-eight days, the tribunal will decline to register the application as the relevant admissibility conditions will not have been met. This will however trigger an automatic three month extension of the time limit from the date it would otherwise have expired. In this event the claimant must send a step one letter by no later than 28 days after the date when the normal time limit would have expired. If he/she does so there will be an opportunity to present a valid tribunal claim under the jurisdiction in question within the extended time limit. If not, however, he/she will be barred from doing so. The Regulations also allow for penalties to be imposed against those who do not follow the grievance procedures. S31 allows a tribunal to increase or decrease compensation by ten percent for failing to comply with the statutory procedures. To try to assist with disputes in the workplace some companies have developed their own dispute resolution procedures between the employers and the trade unions. These schemes allow an employee to bring a grievance through an informal route rather than through statutory procedures.
Where these schemes operate the courts can infer that the statutory procedure has been followed. By treating this action as though the statutory procedure has been followed employers are prevented from dismissing an employer and then asserting that the employee filed to follow the statutory procedure for bringing a grievance. The effect of disputes being resolved in the workplace rather than in a tribunal can be quite immense in financial terms. Tribunals tend to be costly and in a sense there are no winners in a tribunal. A dismissed employee might be awarded compensation but re-instatement might not be ordered or might not be appropriate. In these cases the employee may be significantly worse off financially as they would only have the compensation money and no regular income from employment. When trying to gain alternative employment the employee might face difficulty as the prospective employer is likely to be aware of the tribunal proceedings brought against the previous employer and be reluctant to employ the person for that reason. For the employer who loses at the tribunal the loss is mostly monetary, though the publicity that is attracted during the hearing could also impact on the employer’s business.
This might particularly be the case if the complaint by the employee is one of sexual discrimination or disability discrimination. Such an employer could become the target of others who wish to exploit the fact that the employer has already lost one case on these grounds It could be argued that the introduction of the Regulations has reduced the number of dismissals as employers are now faced with increased likelihood of unfair dismissal claims being brought against them should they fail to follow the correct disciplinary procedure before dismissing an employee. Employers should make themselves aware of the required procedure in order to avoid such claims. The advantages to the changes that have been brought about by the Regulation are that employers are now under a duty to ensure that they have followed the disciplinary procedure before they can dismiss an employee, claims for unfair dismissal can be avoided if the correct procedure is followed before the dismissal is ordered, and grievances can be aired in the workplace rather than before a tribunal which could prevent the employee from being dismissed. It would appear that the regulations and Acts now in force are designed more to protect the rights of employer than for the protection of employers rights. The contract of employment would appear to offer protection from dismissal to employees but is counterbalanced by requiring the employees to work to specific standards and to perform certain tasks that their role dictates. The general trend of more and more cases of unfair dismissal being brought in industrial tribunals would seem to suggest that employers are failing to heed the requirements that statute and employment contracts place on them. A substantial amount of claims for unfair dismissal still revolve around sex discrimination or disability discrimination which would seem to be an indicator that employers have not take on board fully the impact of the legislation in these areas. In order to reduce the amount of unfair dismissal hearings employers are going to need to exercise even greater care to ensure full compliance with disciplinary procedures. If they adhered more closely to these procedures then the issue of gender or disability often raised would be diluted and there would be fewer matters raised before a tribunal The use of dispute resolutions in the workplace is likely to limit the damage for both the employer and the employee.
The employee is more likely to be able to remain in their employment. For the employer, once they have followed the correct procedure they are less likely to face a claim for unfair dismissal if the employee fails to improve in their performance at work or to modify their behaviour where such a compliant has been made against them. As more company’s and employers become aware of the requirements it is likely that in the future there will be fewer cases of unfair dismissal and less people being dismissed unnecessarily.
The Regulations in a sense have made it compulsory for employers to seek alternatives to dismissal, whilst still allowing instant dismissal where the behaviour if the employee is such that continued employment would be untenable as discussed above. The conclusion that can be drawn from the above is that the Regulations have impacted on the rates of dismissals of employees and have afforded them a greater degree of protection from unfair dismissal. From the employers standpoint dismissal of an employee has become more difficult and they now have to account for their reasons for dismissing someone. Employers are also under greater pressure now to ensure that employees facing dismissal are given the opportunity to improve their quality of work or amend their behaviour before they can move towards dismissing them. Bibliography Berry, A, Dealing with your Dismissal in One Week, 2000, Hodder & Stoughton Inns of Court Law School, Employment Law in Practice, 7th Ed, 2006, Oxford University Press Painter, R & Holmes, A, Cases and Materials on Employment Law, 2006, Oxford University Press Rich, M, Edwards, I, Mead, H, Mead’s Unfair Dismissal, 1994, Sweet and Maxwell Employment Law Journal 2006, vol 73(Sep), 9-11 https://www.lawontheweb.co.uk https://www.journalonline.co.uk Table of Cases Ask Security Ltd v Foote & Anor  UKEAT 0433 Avid Technology Europe Ltd v Breedon  UKEAT 0254_ British Airways Plc v Employment Appeal Tribunal Decision  ScotCS 309; Bankhead v Directorate of Naval Reserves & Ors (Unfair Dismissal/Disability Discrimination)  NIIT 1142 03 Codemasters Software Co Ltd v Wong 2006 WL 3835216 Cooper v West Yorkshire Police & Anor  UKEAT 0035 Devlin v Royal Mail  NIIT 2550 Draper v. Mears Ltd  UKEAT 0174 Edem v Egg Plc & Anor  UKEAT 0573 European Working Time Directive No 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust  UKEAT 0705 Fernandez v. The Office of The Parliamentary Commissioner For Administration & Anor  UKEAT 0180 Fraser v Hlmad Ltd.  EWCA Civ 738 (15 June 2006) Glasgow City Council v. Deans & Ors  UKEAT 0061 Glasgow School of Art v. Taylor  UKEAT 0011 GMB Trade Union & Ors v Hughes & Anor  UKEAT 0288 Greenhoff v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council  UKEAT 0093 Hamling v Coxlease School Ltd  UKEAT 0181 Hospitality Training Foundation v Philip  UKEAT 288 Johnson Matthey Plc v Watters  UKEAT 0236 Kelly-Madden v. Manor Surgery  UKEAT 0105 Kennaugh v David Lloyd-Jones (t/a Cheshire Tree Surgeons)  UKEAT 0032 Lake v British Transport Police  UKEAT 0154 Landeshaupstadt Kiel v Norbert Jaeger Case C-151/02 Lewald-Jezierska v Solicitors in Law Ltd & Ors  UKEAT 0165 Lewisham Social Services & Anor v Jackson  UKEAT 0331 Lipscombe v Forestry Commission  UKEAT 0191 London Borough of Barnet v Ferguson  UKEAT 0220 London Borough of Hounslow v Klusova  UKEAT 0325 London Borough of Lambeth & Ors v Corlett  UKEAT 0396 Marlborough Hotel v Meiris  UKEAT 0256 Masterfoods (A Division of Mars UK Ltd) v Wilson  UKEAT 0202 McClements v Royal Mail  NIIT 1555 Metrobus Ltd v Cook 2007 WL 504769 Nenji v Birmingham Childrens Hospital NHS Trust  EWCA Civ 1108 (29 June 2001) O’Donoghue v Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council  EWCA Civ 701 (15 May 2001) Patel v Leicester City Council 2006 WL 3877634 Pugh v National Assembly for Wales  UKEAT 0251 Quigley v. University of St Andrews  UKEAT 0025 Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Theobald 2007 WL 261205 Sanmina SCI UK Ltd v. McCormack & Ors  UKEAT 0066 Scottish Shellfish Marketing Group Ltd v. Connelly  UKEAT 0008 Sidhu v. Superdrug Stores Plc  UKEAT 0244 Sindicato de MA©dicos de Asistencia PAºblica v. Conselleria de Sanidad y Consumo de la Generalidad Valenciana,, Case C-303/98 Singh (t/a Rainbow International) v. Taylor  UKEAT 0183 The National Union of Teachers v. L Watson  UKEAT 0204 Wandsworth NHS Primary Care Trust v. Obonyo  UKEAT 0237 Weir & Anor (The Firm of Brae Cottage Residential Home) v. Stewart  UKEAT 0005 West Coast Trains Ltd v Murphy  UKEAT 0064 X v Y  EWCA Civ 662 (28 May 2004) Table of Statutes Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Employment Act 2002 Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolutions) Regulations 2004 Employment Rights Act 1996 Equal Pay Act 1970 Factory Acts 1833 Master and Servant Act 1932 Race Relations Act 1976 Sex Discrimination Act 1975 1
 Lewisham Social Services & Anor v Jackson  UKEAT 0331
 The National Union of Teachers v. L Watson  UKEAT 0204; Lake v British Transport Police  UKEAT 0154
 Sex Discrimination Act 1975; Disability Discrimination Act 1995; Race Relations Act 1976
 O’Donoghue v Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council  EWCA Civ 701 (15 May 2001); British Airways Plc v Employment Appeal Tribunal Decision  ScotCS 309; Bankhead v Directorate of Naval Reserves & Ors (Unfair Dismissal/Disability Discrimination)  NIIT 1142 03; Edem v Egg Plc & Anor  UKEAT 0573
 Factory Acts 1833; Master and Servant Act 1932
 Equal Pay Act 1970
 European Working Time Directive No 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993; Sindicato de MA©dicos de Asistencia PAºblica v. Conselleria de Sanidad y Consumo de la Generalidad Valenciana,, Case C-303/98; Landeshaupstadt Kiel v Norbert Jaeger Case C-151/02
 Lewisham Social Services & Anor v Jackson  UKEAT 0331
 Kelly-Madden v. Manor Surgery  UKEAT 0105  London Borough of Barnet v Ferguson  UKEAT 0220  Johnson Matthey Plc v Watters  UKEAT 0236  Ask Security Ltd v Foote & Anor  UKEAT 0433  Avid Technology Europe Ltd v Breedon  UKEAT 0254_  Patel v Leicester City Council 2006 WL 3877634  Scottish Shellfish Marketing Group Ltd v. Connelly  UKEAT 0008  Devlin v Royal Mail  NIIT 2550  Nenji v Birmingham Childrens Hospital NHS Trust  EWCA Civ 1108 (29 June 2001)  Hospitality Training Foundation v Philip  UKEAT 288  Sidhu v. Superdrug Stores Plc  UKEAT 0244  Employment Rights Act 1996 s3  Sidhu v. Superdrug Stores Plc  UKEAT 0244  Glasgow School of Art v. Taylor  UKEAT 0011  Glasgow City Council v. Deans & Ors  UKEAT 0061  Cooper v West Yorkshire Police & Anor  UKEAT 0035  Hamling v Coxlease School Ltd  UKEAT 0181; Greenhoff v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council  UKEAT 0093  X v Y  EWCA Civ 662 (28 May 2004)  McClements v Royal Mail  NIIT 1555  Draper v. Mears Ltd  UKEAT 0174  Weir & Anor (The Firm of Brae Cottage Residential Home) v. Stewart  UKEAT 0005  Marlborough Hotel v Meiris  UKEAT 0256  Employment Act 2002 Schedule 2 Ch 1 2(4)  Employment Act 2002 Schedule 2 Ch 1 3 (1)  Employment Act 2002 Schedule 2 Ch 1 3 (2)  Employment Act 2002 Schedule 2 Ch 1 3 (3)  Employment Act 2002 Schedule 2 Ch 1 3 (4)  Employment Act 2002 Schedule 2 Ch 1 3 (5)  Masterfoods (A Division of Mars UK Ltd) v Wilson  UKEAT 0202  Employment Act 2002 s30 (2)  Fraser v Hlmad Ltd.  EWCA Civ 738 (15 June 2006)  London Borough of Lambeth & Ors v Corlett  UKEAT 0396  Singh (t/a Rainbow International) v. Taylor  UKEAT 0183  Lipscombe v Forestry Commission  UKEAT 0191  Pugh v National Assembly for Wales  UKEAT 0251  Quigley v. University of St Andrews  UKEAT 0025  Wandsworth NHS Primary Care Trust v. Obonyo  UKEAT 0237  Fernandez v. The Office of The Parliamentary Commissioner For Administration & Anor  UKEAT 0180; Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust  UKEAT 0705  Glasgow School of Art v. Taylor  UKEAT 0011  Sanmina SCI UK Ltd v. McCormack & Ors  UKEAT 0066  London Borough of Hounslow v Klusova  UKEAT 0325  West Coast Trains Ltd v Murphy  UKEAT 0064  Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust  UKEAT 0705  GMB Trade Union & Ors v Hughes & Anor  UKEAT 0288  Lewald-Jezierska v Solicitors in Law Ltd & Ors  UKEAT 0165  Kennaugh v David Lloyd-Jones (t/a Cheshire Tree Surgeons)  UKEAT 0032  Employment Rights Act 1996 s1  Employment Rights Act 1996 s1 (4) (f)  Employment Rights Act 1996 s3  Disability Discrimination Act 1995 s6  Employment Rights Act 1999 s10  Employment Rights Act 1999 s10  Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Theobald 2007 WL 261205  Metrobus Ltd v Cook 2007 WL 504769  Codemasters Software Co Ltd v Wong 2006 WL 3835216
A professional writer will make a clear, mistake-free paper for you!Get help with your assignment
Please check your inbox
I'm Chatbot Amy :)
I can help you save hours on your homework. Let's start by finding a writer.Find Writer