Editor's message: The need to dismiss an employee can arise for various reasons, including redundancy, as a disciplinary sanction or due to on-going absence because of the employee's ill health.
If you are faced with a situation where you have to dismiss an employee, you should familiarise yourself with your organisation’s policies and procedures and ensure that you follow them. As well as being good practice, this will assist in ensuring that the situation giving rise to the possibility of dismissal is dealt with fairly. Also, failing to follow procedures correctly might cause difficulties if you have to defend a decision to dismiss on appeal, or if the employee challenges the fairness of the dismissal in an employment tribunal.
Be aware that the expiry of a fixed-term contract amounts to a dismissal. Therefore, you need to ensure that you have a fair reason for not renewing an employee's fixed-term contract and that you act reasonably in deciding not to renew the contract. Not doing so may allow the employee to complain that the dismissal was unfair.
Madeleine Graham, managing editor, employment law
A model letter informing an employee of the outcome of a stage 3 long-term sickness absence formal review meeting.
A model letter to invite an employee to an appeal hearing where the employee has appealed his or her dismissal under the long-term sickness absence management procedure.
A model letter informing an employee of the outcome of a stage 3 short-term sickness absence formal review meeting.
A model letter inviting an employee to a short-term sickness absence appeal hearing.
A model letter informing an employee of the outcome of a short-term sickness absence appeal hearing.
A model letter dismissing an employee who has refused redeployment following a formal sickness absence management procedure.
The Court of Appeal has held that the employer was not required to match each category of gross misconduct to each allegation and that how the conduct was eventually categorised was a matter for the decision-maker after all the evidence had been adduced.
In City of York Council v Grosset EAT/0015/16, the EAT upheld a tribunal's decision that the dismissal of a teacher who showed an 18-rated film to a class of vulnerable 15- and 16-year-olds amounted to discrimination because of something arising from his disability under s.15 of the Equality Act 2010. The evidence available to the tribunal enabled a permissible conclusion that the misconduct arose in consequence of disability, and that dismissal was not objectively justified.
Darren Newman talks listeners through British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell, one of the most significant cases in employment law.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to dismissal.