Constructive Dismissal: The Contractual Maze

D. Brodie
{"title":"Constructive Dismissal: The Contractual Maze","authors":"D. Brodie","doi":"10.1080/09615768.2022.2093620","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The scheme of statutory protection in the United Kingdom established by the law of unfair dismissal in the Industrial Relations Act 1971 (UK) is sensitive to the need to accommodate the realities of the different ways in which a working relationship might come to an end. Since 1974, the view has rightfully been taken that it was not enough to regulate situations involving dismissals as generally understood where the decision to terminate is one taken and communicated by the employer. Parliament recognised that the employer’s behaviour might trigger severance of the relationship at the hands of the employee. Employees may, in response to an intolerable state of affairs, simply resign and have no intention of returning. The common law would not regard this as constituting a dismissal but it was, nevertheless, important that the employer’s behaviour still be subject to scrutiny and that the employee be furnished with a remedy should their complaint be upheld. The foregoing considerations led to the borrowing of the concept of constructive dismissal from the law of redundancy payments. Paragraph 5 (2) of Schedule 1 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 (UK) extended the meaning of dismissal to include situations where ` the employee terminates that contract, with or without notice, in circumstances such that he is entitled to terminate it without notice by reason of the employer’s conduct. Section 23 of the 1971 Act (which defined dismissal for the purposes of unfair dismissal) had failed to make provision in that regard. Thus, the employee who resigns in response to the employer’s wrongful conduct is regarded as having being dismissed for the purposes of an unfair dismissal action. In my view, the introduction of constructive dismissal was an admirable step. It provides the beleaguered employee with a measure of empowerment and allows them to bring an unsatisfactory situation to an end whilst, at the same, affording a means of access to an employment tribunal. The way in which constructive dismissal is expressed","PeriodicalId":88025,"journal":{"name":"King's law journal : KLJ","volume":"64 1","pages":"151 - 168"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"King's law journal : KLJ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2022.2093620","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The scheme of statutory protection in the United Kingdom established by the law of unfair dismissal in the Industrial Relations Act 1971 (UK) is sensitive to the need to accommodate the realities of the different ways in which a working relationship might come to an end. Since 1974, the view has rightfully been taken that it was not enough to regulate situations involving dismissals as generally understood where the decision to terminate is one taken and communicated by the employer. Parliament recognised that the employer’s behaviour might trigger severance of the relationship at the hands of the employee. Employees may, in response to an intolerable state of affairs, simply resign and have no intention of returning. The common law would not regard this as constituting a dismissal but it was, nevertheless, important that the employer’s behaviour still be subject to scrutiny and that the employee be furnished with a remedy should their complaint be upheld. The foregoing considerations led to the borrowing of the concept of constructive dismissal from the law of redundancy payments. Paragraph 5 (2) of Schedule 1 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 (UK) extended the meaning of dismissal to include situations where ` the employee terminates that contract, with or without notice, in circumstances such that he is entitled to terminate it without notice by reason of the employer’s conduct. Section 23 of the 1971 Act (which defined dismissal for the purposes of unfair dismissal) had failed to make provision in that regard. Thus, the employee who resigns in response to the employer’s wrongful conduct is regarded as having being dismissed for the purposes of an unfair dismissal action. In my view, the introduction of constructive dismissal was an admirable step. It provides the beleaguered employee with a measure of empowerment and allows them to bring an unsatisfactory situation to an end whilst, at the same, affording a means of access to an employment tribunal. The way in which constructive dismissal is expressed
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
建设性解雇:合同迷宫
1971年《工业关系法》(英国)中关于不公平解雇的法律规定了联合王国的法定保护计划,该计划对需要适应工作关系可能以不同方式结束的现实情况很敏感。自1974年以来,有一种正确的观点认为,对一般理解的解雇情况进行管制是不够的,因为解雇的决定是由雇主作出和通报的。议会认识到,雇主的行为可能会导致雇员终止与雇主的关系。员工可能会在无法忍受的情况下直接辞职,并且不打算再回来。普通法不认为这构成解雇,但重要的是,雇主的行为仍然受到审查,如果雇员的申诉得到支持,雇主应向雇员提供补救措施。上述考虑导致从遣散费法中借用建设性解雇的概念。《1974年工会和劳动关系法》(英国)附表1第5(2)段将解雇的含义扩展到包括“雇员终止合同,无论是否通知,在这种情况下,他有权因雇主的行为而无需通知而终止合同”的情况。1971年法案第23条(为不公平解雇的目的定义解雇)没有在这方面作出规定。因此,因雇主的不法行为而辞职的雇员被视为因不公平解雇行为而被解雇。在我看来,引入建设性解雇是令人钦佩的一步。它为陷入困境的雇员提供了一定程度的授权,使他们能够结束不满意的情况,同时提供了诉诸就业法庭的途径。建设性解雇的表达方式
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Unity in diversity? Constitutional identities, deliberative processes and a ‘Border Poll’ in Ireland The Nation vs. the People. The unconstitutionality of secessionist referendums under Belgian constitutional law The impact of federalism on secession referendums: comparing Scotland and Québec Assessing the Legitimacy of Referendums as a Vehicle for Constitutional Amendment: Reform and Abolition of the Legislative Councils in Queensland and New South Wales Referendums and representation in democratic constitution making: Lessons from the failed Chilean constitutional experiment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1