Unfair dismissal cases, disciplinary procedures, recruitment methods and management style. Case study evidence from three industrial sectors
| Pages | 536-550 |
| Published date | 01 December 1998 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/01425459810247297 |
| Date | 01 December 1998 |
| Author | John Goodman,Jill Earnshaw,Mick Marchington,Robin Harrison |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Employee
Relations
20,6
536
Unfair dismissal cases,
disciplinary procedures,
recruitment methods and
management style
Case study evidence from three
industrial sectors
John Goodman, Jill Earnshaw, Mick Marchington
and Robin Harrison
Manchester School of Management, UMIST, Manchester, UK
Introduction
Against the background of recent and current proposals in the UK for changes
in unfair dismissal legislation, this paper reports on recent company/site level
research into the factors influencing the incidence, or otherwise, of unfair
dismissal cases. The research is based on matched comparisons of
predominantly small businesses or sites in three industries. This paper seeks to
review disciplinary procedures in these companies, and to examine some of the
major influences on their operation, such as recruitment practices and
management style and methods.
Background
A right not to be unfairly dismissed has formed a central element of individual
statutory employment rights in the UK for over 25 years, since its introduction
in the 1971 Industrial Relations Act. For much of that period, and indeed very
recently, it has attracted interest and attention from policy makers, as the
following examples illustrate. The 1998 Employment Rights (Dispute
Resolution) Act introduces a number of changes in the consideration of claims
by industrial tribunals (IT)[1], e.g. the parties’ use of in-house appeal procedure,
and it also provides for an ACAS-operated voluntary arbitration alternative to
decisions by ITs. Second, the May 1998 White Paper Fairness at Work includes
proposals to create a legal right for employees to be accompanied by a fellow
employee or trade union representative of their choice during grievance and
disciplinary procedures, to reduce the (normal) continuous employment
qualifying period from 24 to 12 months, and to abolish the ceiling on
compensation awards for successful “standard” claims of unfair dismissal.
Employee Relations,
Vol. 20 No. 6, 1998, pp. 536-550,
© MCBUniversity Press, 0142-5455 The research on which this paper is based was commissioned and financed by the Department of
Trade & Industry. The views expressed here are those of the authors.
To continue reading
Request your trial