Constructive Dismissal
|Case 1 - Question1 15 marks |
|Discussed whether Caroline’s claim for Constructive Dismissal can be sustained. Provide your justification in details by citing the |
|examples from the above case and supported by the relevant supporting documents. |
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
|Discussed whether Caroline’s claim for Constructive Dismissal can be sustained. Provide your justification in details by citing the |
|examples from the above case and supported by the relevant supporting documents. |
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
Bibliography: Date of Submission: 5th April, 2012 Submission due on Week 7: 5th April, 2012 (Friday) at 4.00 pm.