Employment law Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Employment law - Coursework ExampleIn the illustration of Davis and his company management, the decision to dismiss may appear malicious but it was meant to protect the reputation of that institutions. However, if an employee has been lay out in contravention of the laws governing their utilization, they still gravel rights to fair trial and access to a lawyer. A free and fair disciplinary committee hears and determines the case based on leaven gathered1. In the moment an employee feels that they were unjustly treated, they can seek assistant from their trade unions or employment tribunals. Petitioners are encouraged to take care they exhaust all possible avenues of justice before filing their cases at the tribunals2. The latter take a long period before the hearing and making any determination of the case. The following discussion focuses on a case involving dismissal of Dave from his work under some controversial circumstances. The main aim is ground if he is qualified fo r any remedies if the employment tribal rules on his behalf. Statement of the case The case involves a Dave who was a manager at the Pamper. He had been in the company for a period of more than 11 years. His dismissal occurred on 26 May 2012 under certain controversial circumstances. He had entered a shop at to purchase some goods when he saw his friend. He left the queue while still attribute the items but let the till assistant know about it. It is at that time that the store detective, acting on the perception that he was a thief, decided to arrest him. His case was dismissed immediately for neediness of sufficient evidence. However, his employers did not take the matter lightly and therefore decided to constitute a disciplinary committee. After gathering tuition from the store detective and Janice who was Daves assistant, they dismissed him. Anomalies in the determinations of the case From the summary of the case, there were various legal anomalies. Firstly, Dave was denied the right to a fair trial. He was denied permission to be correspond by his lawyer. This is against the Article 6 of the constitution, which requires defendants be represented by such legal experts3. In R (Seymour-Smith) v Secretary of State for Employment case, the judge ruled in favour of the plaintiff. The dismissal was unfair due to discrimination against the plaintiff. Dave was also discriminated and treated unfairly by being denied right to an attorney. This was unfair for him from a legal point of view because he appeared overwhelmed. All other members were against him including the disciplinary committee, which relied on biased information. Secondly, the evidence was gathered in a hurry and was not analyzed to ensure it was reliable. Some of the witnesses such as Janice is said to have had some disagreements with Dave several times. It is therefore possible that her testimony was biased and malicious. She might have wished Dave away so that she could take over his position . It appears that the employers were determined to dismiss Dave. They were only focused on information that supported the fact that he had purposed to steal. However, this is unrealistic since he had never done that before, and his status at his play did not allow him to behave that way. These gross anomalies should form a basis for seeking redress to the employment tribunal4. Dave, should be free to file his petition immediately with the employment tr