Interpreting Unfair Dismissal and Redundancy Payments Law: The Judicial Reluctance to Disapprove Employer Decisions to Dismiss

Bennett, Michael

doi:10.1093/slr/23.2.135

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, the RORR test has been argued to create a downwards pressure on the standards expected of employers. 66 Dismissal is the most severe option available to employers, and each defendant need only convince the tribunal that other, reasonable employers would have adopted that same course of action. For example, in Haddon v van der Bergh Foods , 67 the employee was dismissed for failing to return to his shift after a company awards ceremony.…”

Section: The Fairness Standard In Actionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones (1982): Fairness, Forty Years on

Collins¹

2022

Landmark Cases in Labour Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Fairness Standard In Actionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones (1982): Fairness, Forty Years on

Collins¹

2022

Landmark Cases in Labour Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In fact the tribunal is following the standard of the employers most likely to dismiss employees. It thus can be argued that the tribunal is legitimating the actions of the worst employers (Bennet, 2002).…”

Section: Criticism Of the Rorr Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

Employee misconduct and UK unfair dismissal law

Brodtkorb

2010

International Journal of Law and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to expose practical and theoretical problems with the range of reasonable responses (RORR) test as applied in UK unfair dismissal law, and to propose an alternative interpretation of the test that would resolve these problems. Design/methodology/approach -Through a close analysis of the purpose and structure of UK unfair dismissal law, and a careful reading of the leading cases in the area, the paper questions whether the law as it is currently interpreted achieves the goals of the underlying legislation. The current interpretation of the law being found lacking, alternatives are considered and evaluated. Findings -The RORR test, as delineated in the most recent Court of Appeal cases, holds that dismissals are fair unless they are based on a reason for which no reasonable employer would dismiss. This interpretation of the test is internally incoherent; moreover, it fails adequately to promote the goals of unfair dismissal law, which are to protect the dignity and autonomy of employees. An alternative and superior interpretation of the test would hold a dismissal to be outside the RORR if no rational theory of management would condone dismissal on the grounds given by the employer. Social implications -The paper draws attention to fundamental incoherence in the current interpretation and application of unfair dismissal law, and suggests a new and better approach. If the new approach were accepted by the courts or by Parliament, it could lead to reform in unfair dismissal law. Originality/value -The paper provides a detailed analysis of the RORR test, a long-standing and well-recognized problem in UK unfair dismissal law, and suggests a novel solution that would improve the coherence and function of unfair dismissal law.

show abstract

Interpreting Unfair Dismissal and Redundancy Payments Law: The Judicial Reluctance to Disapprove Employer Decisions to Dismiss

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones (1982): Fairness, Forty Years on

Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones (1982): Fairness, Forty Years on

Employee misconduct and UK unfair dismissal law

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About