Health and Safety Dismissals – steps to go through – s100 ERA

These figures are provided by the Notaries of London

normal circs his claim would be scuppered

IT CANT BE BOTH s44 and s100 !!!!!!!

It’s s100 if e/ee has lost his job

It’s s44 if e/ee is still in his job but is suffering a detriment

 No continuous employment needed – important as its normally new people who


 Automatically unfair (s.100 ERA) to dismiss an employee if the employee:

o Carried out activities in connection with preventing or reducing risks to H&S

at work, where the employer designated the employee to carry out activities;

o Performed or proposed to perform any functions as a H&S rep;

o Brought to employers attention circumstances connected with his work which

he reasonably believed to be harmful or potentially so;

o Left, proposed to leave, or refused to return to his place of work or any

dangerous part of his place of work, which he reasonably believed to be


o Took or proposed to take appropriate steps to protect himself or others from


o Participated reasonably in any consultation with his employer or in election of

a H&S rep.

 It’s irrelevant if its reasonable or not, the e/er cannot argue fairness and the ET wont

consider it if the dismissal is due to H+S

 Burden of proof is on the employee to prove principal reason for dismissal is H&S, if

ET happy with this, it is deemed automatically unfair.

Different assessment of awards:

Where employee is a H&S rep:

 Minimum basic award of £3,600

 Additional award of between 26 – 52 weeks pay cab be made where employee

requests reinstatement or re-engagement and either:

o The tribunal refuses to make an order, or

o The tribunal makes an order but the employer refuses to comply.

 No upper limit on award – H+S e/es get more than normal people

 Interim relief – employer can be forced to pay salary in the interim until the

settlement of the case. The claim must be brought no later than 7 days after the

EDT. The C must satisfy the tribunal that the substantive claim for UD on H&S

grounds is likely to succeed. Once satisfied the tribunal will ask the employer

whether he is willing to reinstate or re-engage the employee. If not agreed the

tribunal will make an order for continuation of the contract of employment

(contractual pay and benefits) together with compensation from termination until


settlement of complaint. The money paid does not have to be paid back even if C


Other employees dismissed may be entitled to an additional award for failure by the employer

to comply with an order to reinstate or re-engage, again there is no max limit placed on

compensatory awards.

Right not to suffer a detriment in H&S cases – s44 ERA

Principle e/ee raises H+S and in the future the e/er overlooks them for promotion and

doesn’t give them bonuses, etc – covered by s44 ERA

IT CANT BE BOTH s44 and s100 !!!!!!!

It’s s100 if e/ee has lost his job

It’s s44 if e/ee is still in his job but is suffering a detriment

Employee entitled not to be subject to any detriment by an act or deliberate failure to act by

his employer on the same grounds as exist for automatically UD, s.44 ERA 1996.

Dismissal is not a detriment and therefore s.44 does not apply. This makes the right to be

UD on H&S grounds (s.100) and the right not to suffer a detriment mutually exclusive (s.44).

Detriment under s.44 amounts to disciplinary procedure etc.

An employee may present a claim on the ground that he has suffered a detriment in

contravention of s.44 provided it is presented within 3 months beginning with the date of the

act. If complaint upheld, the tribunal will make a declaration to that effect and also award

compo to the employee of such amount as it considers to be just and equitable in all


IT CANT BE BOTH s44 and s100 !!!!!!!

It’s s100 if e/ee has lost his job

It’s s44 if e/ee is still in his job but is suffering a detriment

Cotterrell Politics of Jurisprudence, Chs. 3 and 4

  • Austin’s main aim was to separate law from other doctrines such as morality or politics, and defined law as “a rule laid down for an intelligent being, by an intelligent being having power over him.” Power and “commands” are at the centre of the Austin/Bentham definition, though Bentham, unlike Austin, was willing to include stipulated rewards as an alternative to sanctions. Austin denied this possibility, since he thought law was to do with commands, and commands are different from incentives. He claimed that nullity was a sanction (to get round the power-conferring problem). Hart’s criticism on the basis that (1) Austin’s single coercive model ignores the variety of laws and (2) ignores the different purpose of laws, as demonstrated by the variety of sanctions, is rejected by Cotterrell on the grounds that Austin was merely seeking to demonstrate characteristics familiar to all laws, NOT claim that all laws serve the same purpose. Laws repealing other ones were not laws in a real sense, since they commanded nothing.

Continue reading “Cotterrell Politics of Jurisprudence, Chs. 3 and 4”

Harris Legal Philosophies, Ch. 9 (explanation of Hart’s Concept of Law)

  • Hart believed in examining legal concepts by the words used to represent them and how those words were used in ordinary language, inside and outside of the law. Use of words could be sociological evidence for something. From language analysis we discover we deduce sociological information.
  • If a group has a rule, 2 things exist: (1) Members perform/refrain from performing certain actions, and (2) there must be a “critical reflective attitude” shared by the majority towards the action in question. (1) alone would merely be habit. (2) – the internal attitude-can be demonstrated by demands for conformity e.g. normative language such as “you ought to do this”. When the pressure to conform is great, the rule is an “obligation rule”.

Continue reading “Harris Legal Philosophies, Ch. 9 (explanation of Hart’s Concept of Law)”