Labor Law - Constructive Dismissal - Procedure - Complaint Handling - Employment Act 2002

The case of Plummer v DMC Business Machines Plc [2007], began when an employee an argument with one of his colleagues had. The employer initiated disciplinary proceedings, given the two men in a final written warning to episode. The employee subsequently resigned and wrote a letter to the employer complaining that he had with the way the employer treats the events until his resignation was unfortunate.

The employee has obtained the proceedings for constructive dismissal and. TheEmployer appealed. The following issues arise then:

§ Whether the court had jurisdiction over the claim due to the fact that the employee had not filed an appeal hearing in writing pursuant to S.32 (2) and para.6 of Schedule 2 of the Employment Act 2002.

§ Whether the employer was required to raise the issue of non-compliance with S.32 (2) to activate the provisions of S.32 (6).

Under S.32 (6) (b) of the Employment Act 2002, a courtis examining a complaint if S.32 (has prevented 2), were not respected, but only if the court is satisfied that the injury to their attention by the employer was the question of non-compliance has p. 32 (2).

The appeal was dismissed: --

§ To fulfill para.6 (and 9) of Schedule 2, the written statement of objections did not work out too formal. It had, however, make it clear to the employer, which was compatibleabove.

§ In this case, we believe that the letter was written, was likely to meet with the complaint. Even if the letter could have been no concrete evidence of the disciplinary proceedings, it was decided that it was clear what the workers referred to himself, there was nothing else that had done the employer, the employee was the subject of the letter.

§ For this reason, the employee had scratched out just over the crossbar in para.6.

§It was noted that with regard to the provisions of S.32 (turn 6) (if activated would be to prevent the court from examining a complaint, which is in breach of S.32 (2)), was an employer required to specifically plead that it had not been compliance with these provisions. While the issue of Non-compliance could possibly carry us through the employers have to raise this issue in an amendment that had the hearing on the basis that the question was made on the matters properly submitted, went throughof workers, the focus was on trying to change the employer, in order to raise the issue of non-compliance, if they wanted to invoke s 32 (6) of the Act of 2002.

§ This is what has happened in this case, namely that the hearing was made on the basis that the issues were properly submitted by the employee on.

§ The employer did not try to change in order to raise the issue of non-compliance, and it follows that the employer had the issue ofFailure to comply in accordance with S.32 (6) (b).

If you need further information, please contact us or visit enquiries@rtcoopers.com http://www.rtcoopers.com/practice_employment.php

Comment: This is an employment decision, which brings the problems of an employee's complaint and the procedures to be followed by both the employee and the employer, especially if the case is initiated before an employment tribunal.

© RT Coopers, 2007. This briefing note does nota comprehensive or complete statement of the law on the issues discussed nor constitute legal advice. It will deal only with general issues. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to the particular situation.

search job jobs career builder