When discussing whether Ms Indiscreet case has made up a constructive dismissal, there are several technical issues by the company and Ms Indiscreet will be discussed: such as whether Ms Indiscreet is in fault, whether the company is in fault, the applicability of constructive dismissal to Ms Indiscreet case, the reason under Ms indiscreet objection to return to office, her letter to resign and what Ms Indiscreet shall do in the next step.
Ms Indiscreet has no fault
Firstly, the relationship between Ms indiscreet and Mr Fussy is not illegitimate in the UK. A woman has the right to choose to have an affair with one or more males as there has allocated equal right to a mature woman to have sex, with Ms Indiscreet being one of them and her right being protected. What’s more, there is no introduction of Mr Fussy and Mr Strong family background. Should they be married men, there is an adultery and the affairs have affected the rights of these wives and will lead to family disputes and will affect the two men’s doing duty to the company and will indirectly affect the company interest and lead to a unfavourable image to the company. If so and only if so, the company has a reason to sack Ms Indiscreet, but it’s too weak. Secondly, Ms Indiscreet has been serving the company for ten years and has not been alleged to flirt with any once she is in office. Ms Indiscreet might have had an affair after her working with the company for years. So the accident of pregnancy and its cause have occurred during Ms Indiscreet serving the company, though before the Christmas party. What’s more, the accident covers only a short time span of the ten-year serving term of Ms Indiscreet. Ms Indiscreet only generally has a fair with Mr Fussy. However, it has not affected her performing her duty to the company. What’s more, the women under the Queen of UK has the right to screen a better man and future husband from two or more males and the best method is to have sex with them in the first hand then draw a judgement on which man will bring out the perfect satisfaction of sex, before the consideration of marriage. Every mature and desirous man and woman of UK has the right to sex and has the right to test a partner even by sex. Then, they compare and prepare for the coming marriage. What’s more, co-workers of Ms Indiscreet and other UK women might also act in this way, as it does not affect the company business or a third party’s right.
Thirdly, Ms indiscreet has no deliberate purpose to alienate Mr Strong and Mr Fussy as she slept with the former only after getting drunk and habitually has affairs with Mr Fussy as she will eat and drink and enjoy it. No evidence shows that Ms Indiscreet has harboured any hatred and will bring the two men or the company into turmoil. Fourthly, one might be doubting why Ms Indiscreet has not use a condom when having sex with Mr Fussy. It could be inferred as the shear call of convenience and the maximum call of Mr Fussy sex enjoyment. When the circumstance is conducive to a sex entertainment and the desire itches for it except for the reachability of condom, they make it without a condom. When the Queen and the lords of the UK permit sex between males and females and have not specified the special facility and time and place and procedure to do it, the UK servants can enjoy the right to the maximum. To a common human being, washing a bare foot can enjoy more relax than washing it in sock. To Mr Fussy, it will enjoy more sex satisfaction immediately then wearing a condom when having sex with Ms Indiscreet. To the two, does it not make them nearer and bring out more intimacy when there is a removal of a condom as a redundancy (Claudia, 2013)? Though there is evidence that a condom can reduce STI rates and HIV transmission, neither Mr Strong nor Mr Fussy is homosexual or bi-sexual. So they have little chance to...