Good Honest Dollar $$

Today, I would like to look at the question of whether or not workers should have the right to unfair dismissal claims in cases where their employment is terminated for reasons other than unsatisfactory work performance, misconduct or redundancy.

Although dismissal for reasons other than the above can be harsh, I do not agree with the notion that employees have an inherent right to unfair dismissal in such cases as a basic principle of fairness.

Nevertheless, I do believe that the law should place some limitations upon the ability of employers to sack workers due to the potential for employers to use dismissal as a form of retribution in absence of such limitations (see below).

 
Some reasons, or any reason?
Few would dispute the notion that employers should be able to dismiss staff in the event of unsatisfactory work performance, professional misconduct or redundancy.

Legal regimes which do not allow for this are unjust and place an unfair burden upon employers.

Moreover, sensible employers would never dismiss staff whose performance was satisfactory unless their function was no longer required.

Nevertheless we must recognize the unfortunate reality that there are cases where dismissal does occur for reasons other than the above, such as individual personality clashes or a form of retribution for an action which was not popular with certain managers (see below).

The question is – should employers be able to dismiss staff for any reason, or should the law limit dismissal to the reasons stated above?

 
Why shouldn’t employers be able to sack workers as they please?
Although termination of employment for reasons other than unsatisfactory performance, misconduct or redundancy is harsh, I do not agree with the idea that workers should have a right to unfair dismissal claims in such cases simply as a principle of fairness.

Indeed, subject to the fulfillment of relevant contractual provisions, the majority of business relationships work in the basis that either party may terminate the relationship at will, for any reason they please.

Consider the following examples:

• A consumer who wishes to cease doing business with their hairdresser simply stops going – just like that;
• A firm who is unhappy with a particular supplier simply ceases doing business with them – just like that; and
• Employees who no longer wish to serve their current employers simply quit – just like that.

From the viewpoint of fairness, I do not see why the same should not apply to an employer wishing to terminate the services of an employee.

If the employee, as one party to a business relationship, is allowed to terminate the relationship at will, then I would have thought that basic fairness would dictate that the same right should apply to the employer – the counterparty to the relationship.

 
Why unfair dismissal laws are justified
In spite of the above, unfair dismissal laws do provide at least one important purpose – the elimination of unfair dismissal as a form of retribution.

In absence of laws preventing dismissal on unreasonable grounds, it would be possible for employers and or managers to sack workers as a form of retribution.

The prospect of this occurring may result in a reluctance on behalf of staff members to:

• report matters such as fraud, theft or other forms of corporate misconduct;
• report unsatisfactory work conditions, such as physical or sexual abuse, or an unsafe work environment; or
• invoke other legal rights, such as the right to join a union or the right to compensation in the event of injury.

An effectively functioning unfair dismissal regime allows workers to come forward and report such matters, or invoke such rights, with the assurance that dismissal is not a likely consequence.

To be sure, in the circumstances above, there may be other forms of retribution to which the employees concerned may be subjected. Nevertheless, removal of the fear of dismissal reduces the chances of workplace malpractices going unreported to a considerable degree.

This, in my view provides more than sufficient justification for placing some limitations upon the ability of employers to terminate the employment of their staff.