In dealing with constructive dismissal cases, based on the Industrial Relations Act 1967, under section 20, a workman is given recourse in the absence of a formal dismissal or termination, just as long as the workman considers that she has been dismissed whether through some conduct on his employer’s part or an order of demotion or a transfer, section 20(3) can be relied on.
From 22nd March 2004 till 9th April 2004 is a total of 18 days, and therefore, Caroline’s claim for Constructive Dismissal can be sustained. It is stipulated in the Industrial Relations Act 1967, under section 20 (1A), that the representation should be filed within 60 days.
If an employee resigns over one serious incident, in order for her to be able to reply upon a claim for constructive dismissal, the employee must resign soon after the incident (Landmark case on constructive dismissal, 2008, p.8). The fact that she resigned immediately after the harassment, she is entitled for constructive dismissal. There are a few conditions, which should be regarded under this case; Caroline is considered being driven out from the employment due to a situation where she was actually being sexually harassed. This is because, if it wasn’t for the sexual harassment encounter, she probably would still remain in her job. She is considered being sexually harassed as she found what Mr Shamsurin did to her was unwanted conduct, humiliating and also a threat to her weill-being. Most importantly, the incidents happen during her course of employment.
Furthermore, the fact that she was being unjustly pin down by mistakes, is also a form of constructive dismissal. Mr Shamsurin without any purpose unjustly finding her faults, causing her to feel uncomfortable working in the organization, which leads to her voluntary resignation, is a form of constructive dismissals, as Caroline was actually driven out of her employment.
|Case 1 - Question 2 20 marks | |If you have HR Director of Jeprico Zodies, discuss how you are going to handle this issue? |
As a HR Director of Jeprico Zodies, firstly, I would investigate the complaints of sexual harassment being lodged by Caroline. I would meet up the alleged harasser, which in this case is Mr Shamsurin. If Mr Shamsurin does not deny the accusation, then, disciplinary actions would be taken on Mr Shamsurin. However, in most cases, in which most of the harasser refused to admit their action, then, I would need to interrogate witnesses. The witnesses may not be direct witnesses who actually witness the actual incident, witnesses can includes those who noticed that Mr Shamsurin was around the office between 6:30 pm on the 10th February – the purpose is to prove that he was actually in the office at the stipulated time, since 6:30 pm is already off-hour. I would also talk to her friends, who she had informed on the occurrence of the first incident. Secondly, I would also investigate to seek for witnesses who witness that Caroline is actually being unfairly treated in her work, in which Mr Shamsurin purposely finding faults on her.
According to Passarello and Adams (n.d.), every sexual harassment complaint should be investigated, although its minor or it seems like insignificant, or the person who lodged the complained does not want to pursue the matter further. Passarello and Adams (n.d.) had also come up with guides to assist people conducting internal sexual...