Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Employment law

It is time to scrap all but the most basic fundamental employment protection legislation

by Personnel Today 13 Feb 2007
by Personnel Today 13 Feb 2007

Last month on my blog, I suggested that it might be in the best interests of UK plc to scrap some employment protection rights. That hit a raw nerve with some readers, but many employers and HR managers applauded the suggestion.


Most people will agree that we need a set of basic laws/rights that guarantee, for example, minimum wage and a workplace that is free from discrimination. But do we really need to go any further than protecting those basic fundamental rights?


Employee rights


To cut to the chase, in the absence of a breach of such fundamental rights, why should an employee whom an employer deems to be wrong for the job have any right of redress if they are sacked? In other words, are the feelings and the personal hardship suffered by an individual employee more important than the success of the emp­loyer’s business and, arguably, the success of UK plc?


As employment law stands, with a healthy helping of good and pragmatic employment law advice (and by ticking the right procedural boxes), an employer can get rid of and get away with getting rid of those employees that it wants to sack. So why bother with the fluffy procedures at all if a well-advised employer can achieve its real objectives in any event?


For example, if employees are performing badly are ‘ill’ most Fridays and Mondays or are no longer needed because of a downturn in business, why should the employer have to jump through procedural hoops and tick the right boxes before it can do what it had wanted to do in the first instance?


Abolition list


So, should we abolish unfair dismissal law that makes a dismissal unfair if the ill-advised employer forgets to use a prescribed fair reason or fails to follow the right procedure before the employee is sacked?


Let’s abolish tiresome statutory disciplinary and dismissal procedures too. Most readers will know that a dismissal is automatically unfair if these statutory procedures are not followed.


Business consequences


Whatever the government’s good intention, in the real world, this law (just like many fluffy unfair dismissal procedures) has three main consequences:




  • Business owners and HR professionals have the headache of running through additional procedure before they can do what they need to do for the better good of the business


  • Lawyers make more money telling business owners and HR professionals how to carry out the process properly, and


  • Only those employers that do not take good advice fall foul of the new law, and so line the pockets of ‘no win, no fee’ advisers.

It is, I suggest, only in a small minority of cases that an employer keeps a good or average employee that it might otherwise have sacked if its hands had not been tied with the necessity to follow the right procedure.


In summary, provided that employees retain protection in respect of some fundamental rights, I suggest – on behalf of UK employers – that as a first step in the right direction, it is time to abolish some unfair dismissal law and statutory disciplinary and dismissal procedures for the good of UK plc, and all of the good people that work for it.


What should stay and what should go?




  • We need a set of basic laws/rights that guarantee, for example, minimum wage and that a workplace is free from discrimination. But do we really need to go any further?


  • Should the government abolish unfair dismissal law that makes a dismissal unfair if the ill-advised employer forgets to use a prescribed fair reason or fails to follow the right procedure before the employee is sacked?


  • Is it time to abolish tiresome statutory disciplinary and dismissal procedures?

In a recent poll on Personneltoday.com, we asked: Do you think the unfair dismissal law should be scrapped? Of the 450 respondents, 48% said yes, and 52% said no.


By Mark Ellis, solicitor and CEO, Ellis Whittam


Do you agree with Mark Ellis? Send your comments to [email protected]


Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

 




Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
Welfare minister Jim Murphy announces government move to cut migrant worker benefits if they refuse to learn the language
next post
Church of England reviews its defined benefits pension scheme

You may also like

Ministers loosen fire and rehire proposals in Employment...

10 Jul 2025

Court of Appeal rules that Ryanair agency pilot...

9 Jul 2025

Bereavement leave to extend to miscarriages before 24...

7 Jul 2025

Company director wins £15k after being told to...

4 Jul 2025

How can HR prepare for changes to the...

3 Jul 2025

Government publishes ‘roadmap’ for Employment Rights Bill

2 Jul 2025

Employers’ duty of care: keeping workers safe in...

27 Jun 2025

When will the Employment Rights Bill become law?

26 Jun 2025

Seven ways to prepare now for the Employment...

20 Jun 2025

The employer strikes back: the rise of ‘quiet...

13 Jun 2025

  • Empower and engage for the future: A revolution in talent development (webinar) WEBINAR | As organisations strive...Read more
  • Empowering working parents and productivity during the summer holidays SPONSORED | Businesses play a...Read more
  • AI is here. Your workforce should be ready. SPONSORED | From content creation...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+