首页> 外文期刊>Accountancy >EMPLOYMENT LAW
【24h】

EMPLOYMENT LAW

机译:劳工法

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The most common claim brought in the employment tribunal is that of unfair dismissal. In order to defend the claim, the employer has to show that there was a potentially fair reason for the dismissal, for example, conduct, capability, redundancy, etc. However, that it is not sufficient by itself; the employer also has to persuade the employment tribunal that, taking into account all the circumstances including its size and administrative resources, it acted reasonably in treating the reason as sufficient to justify dismissal. In the recent case of Sakharkar v Northern Foods Grocery Group Ltd the importance of the second part of this test was highlighted when the employment tribunal focused upon the administrative resources of the company as being the deciding factor. The case concerned the application of an absence management procedure. There were in total four trigger points. The first three trigger points would invoke warnings. The fourth and final trigger point invoked dismissal. Mr Sakharkar's repeated absences meant that he reached the fourth stage and was dismissed under the procedure. He presented his claim for unfair dismissal.
机译:就业法庭提出的最常见的要求是不公平解雇的要求。为了为索赔辩护,用人单位必须证明存在解雇的潜在合理原因,例如行为,能力,裁员等。但是,仅凭这一点是不够的;雇主还必须说服就业法庭,考虑到所有情况,包括其规模和行政资源,它在处理足以证明解雇的理由方面采取了合理的行动。在最近的Sakharkar诉Northern Foods Grocery Group Ltd一案中,当雇佣法庭将公司的行政资源作为决定因素时,就突出了该检验第二部分的重要性。该案涉及缺勤管理程序的适用。共有四个触发点。前三个触发点将调用警告。第四个也是最后一个触发点引起了解雇。萨卡卡尔先生的一再缺席意味着他进入了第四阶段,并根据该程序被解雇。他提出了不公正解雇的要求。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Accountancy》 |2011年第1413期|p.82|共1页
  • 作者

  • 作者单位
  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号