Waiting for answer This question has not been answered yet. You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
Write 5 page essay on the topic Discrimination at workplace.Download file to see previous pages... Similarly, statutes that protect employers against unfair dismissal claims by sacked employees are al
Write 5 page essay on the topic Discrimination at workplace.
Download file to see previous pages...Similarly, statutes that protect employers against unfair dismissal claims by sacked employees are also available. Luckily for employees who feel unfairly dismissed on medical grounds, employment law solicitors for advice and representation abound (Tamara, 2007). Cases in which employees have been fired because of their sexuality are also plentiful. Although it is easier for an employee who has worked for an employer for less than one year to be dismissed, there are still certain laid down rules and procedures that must be followed, the reasons for dismissal notwithstanding. Nonetheless, some reasons such as union activity and pregnancy offer good grounds on which an employee may claim unfair dismissal before an Employment Tribunal. In case an employer does not follow the right procedures and laws when dismissing an employee for reasons considered fair under certain employment statutes, it is advisable that the affected employee seeks legal advice. Having worked for an employer for a year and more, an employee is protected against unfair dismissal and can only be sacked on incompetence grounds or disciplinary reasons (Smith &. Baker, 2010). ...
Unfair Dismissal on Medical Grounds The reason Rachael should have hope is that according to many countries and their relevant employment statutes, sacking an employee on grounds of recurring illnesses or being medically unfit is considered unfair. A common case study on unfair dismissal on medical grounds occurred in the Australian Nuclear Science &. Technology Organisation (ANSTO) in June 2009. ANSTO terminated the services of an employee on the grounds of being medically unfit to return to work. Just like Rachael, this employee had a history of depression and needed lengthy sick off and leave. In fact, during a certain period, she was hospitalized for two consecutive months during which she underwent electroconvulsive therapy. Fortunately, she resumed a graduated return to work in December 2007 and only managed to resume full-time hours two months later. However, her illnesses continued to impact on her, forcing her to continue with drug therapy and ECT. Although the depressions became less severe, ANSTO still dismissed the employee. Therefore, similar to the other case of The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC versus Morris UKEAT/0436/10/MAA, Rachael may appeal against her dismissal if she feels she has suffered health and disability discrimination unlike her colleagues in similar situations. Although several statutes protect ill employees from unfair dismissals, those ill for prolonged periods could be fairly dismissed if they are unlikely to get well and return to work in a reasonable time.
