Re-engagement would arise in a scenario whereby the employee would either be returned to the same position they occupied at the time of the dismissal or to a different position and that the employee would return on reasonable terms and conditions in the cirucmstances.
The employee may also be entitled to be paid arrears of wages owed but generally speaking this only applies in re-instatement scenarios. Indeed, if an employee is re-engaged it normally does not take effect from the date of dismissal and quite often takes effect at the date the decision is issued.
This means that the employee will not be entitled to compensation for any loss of earnings. Often this remedy is used where it is felt that the employee contributed to the dismissal, even though the actual dismissal was unfair. In this case, Ms. Stapleton the claimant had been employed by the Credit Union since In June a copy of the Company Bullying and Harassment policy was left on her desk with no explanation. In July , the claimant was stopped outside of work and informed by a member of the public who stated that Ms.
Stapleton was responsible for the sickness absence of one of her colleagues as she was bullying her. Although the issue was raised was raised with her managers, no allegation was ever put to the Claimant.
Both the Claimant and her colleague both attended work and had periods of intermittent sick leave due to work related stress from this time until February In late February the Claimant was contacted by the Credit Union in an effort to resolve the spiraling situation.
She was advised that there were no allegations against her, however the Claimant sought expenses covering her absence and the colleague to be reprimanded. In September of this year, the Claimant attended a meeting with the view to coming to a resolution. In this guide: Introduction What does continuous employment mean? Printer-friendly version. LRA arbitration scheme explained. Also on this site. There can be no question of the courts ultimately forcing an employer to take someone back — a point which appears clear on the face of the statute and was confirmed in MacKenzie.
In that case the claimant was granted a reinstatement order, but the university refused to comply with it. In effect, she tried to seek an injunction to force them to have her back, but this was roundly rejected. Reinstatement means returning the employee to his or her original job. Reengagement means giving the dismissed employee a suitable new job with the same organisation.
These orders are seldom used, partly because an unfairly dismissed employee will not usually want to return to an employer who treated them unreasonably. Another important factor is that reinstatement or reengagement orders will only be made if the tribunal considers that it would be practicable for the employer to comply with them.
0コメント