Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Thursday, November 21, 2024

A Quick Guide To Constructive Unfair Dismissal

Posted in: Employment laws
Thu, Dec 5, 19, 11:18, 5 Years ago
star star star star star
5 out of 5 with 1 ratings
comments: 4 - hits: 6152
Rutman Law provides you with a team of experienced Employment Lawyers In Mississauga at your service. If you are experiencing any unfair dismissal, contact us for fair and square assistance. We will build a convincing legal case for you to help you get rightful justice in the matter. We make sure our clients get full recovery.

Many employees are familiar with the term “unfair dismissal,” and some might have experienced it as well but didn’t do anything about it.

Generally, if you get terminated without any reason or if your termination is not backed up by sufficient explanation, you can easily get a wrongful dismissal claim from the employer.

But, in a different case, if the employer is not formally terminating you, and you feel like you are being forced to resign, that’s when constructive unfair dismissal came into being.

Constituents of Breach Of Contract
The list of breaches of contract is not extensive. However, one or more severe violations of agreement may give rise to constructive dismissal claims.

Some common types of breaches consist of :

  1. You are not getting paid on time, either in half or full.
  2. Your employer demotes you without giving an explanation.
  3. Change in a working environment exclusively for you, for example, change of location or working hours.
  4. If the employer refuses to cooperate with your disability, you can ask for a claim.
  5. Forcing you to work in a dangerous environment, despite knowing your health and safety issues.
  6. If your employer doesn’t do anything about the person bullying or harassing you at the workplace.
  7. Making false accusations about your poor performances.

Link Between Constructive dismissal and Wrongful Dismissal
There is indeed a vast difference between these two types of terminations. Constructive dismissal occurs when the employee resigns due to the violations of the employment contract, whereas in the other one, the employee gets fired for legitimate reasons. 
But, if the employee can get a claim in constructive dismissal, he/she is allowed to file a case for unfair dismissal. 

Dealing with Constructive Termination – For Employers
Before terminating an employee, make sure that the rightfully terminated worker will not find a loophole to get constructive dismissal claims.
However, if an employee resigns based on constructive termination, it can still evade litigation by offering a settlement. You may like to hire a reputed lawyer from Rutman Law for help.

Conclusion
Constructive dismissals may cost heavy to an employer, such as it can put bad imagery of your company, affects your productivity, damaged reputations, or may manipulate your other employees. 
So, to get into any troubled situation like that, be aware of your rights, along with the rights of your employees.

End-Notes:

  1. For any information on employment law Ontario, you may contact Rutman Law. They have many years of expertise in this area.

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
RutmanLaw
Member since Dec 5, 2019
Location: 184 Queen Street West Brampton, Ontario
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
Delhi High Court in Federation of Okhla Industrial Association (Regd) v Lt Governor of Delhi quashed its much-touted March 2017 order revising the minimum wages for all classes of workmen in scheduled employment, opining clearly and categorically that the same was ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India
The unemployment is emerging as the biggest social problem. It takes away the massive share of the referendum, if any political party comes to this agenda.
Ambi Ram v State of Uttarakhand has taken a lenient view in a corruption case involving meager bribe amount on the ground that long pendency amounts to a special reason for imposing lesser penalty.
Tamil Nadu v/s G Hemalathaa strong message has been sent to all the High Courts by reiterating that in judicial service, the High Court can't modify/relax instructions issued by the Public Service Commission..
HP Disapproves Of Employees Managing Posting In And Around Urban Areas And Asks State To Break The Cartel
KK Agarwal vs Sanjiv Nandan Sahai Central Government for not appointing law member in Central Electricity Regulatory Commission [CERC] which is certainly most baffling! Why is law member not being appointed?
Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and others vs Ajai Kumar Srivastava that in banking business absolute devotion, integrity and honesty is a sine qua non for every bank employee.
Sachin Kumar vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) recruitment to public services must command public confidence.
It is a matter of utmost serious concern that more and more states are now making laws for reserving jobs for locals.
Rajasthan vs Love Kush Meena held many times earlier also that acquittal based on a benefit of doubt in respect of a heinous or serious nature of crime cannot make the candidate eligible for public employment.
Madhya Pradesh ruled by BJP this happened. Now again in BJP ruled Haryana we see this happening that 75% of jobs in private sectors
Treasa Josfine vs Kerala that a woman who is fully qualified cannot be denied of her right to be considered for employment on the ground that she is a woman and because the nature of the employment would require her to work during night hours.
against the growing criminalization of politics, the Supreme Court on August 27, 2014 ruled very categorically that as the Constitution reposed great trust in the Prime Minister
A Hameed Hajee v. Keral trade is not more important than health has dismissed a petition seeking withdrawal of the weekend lockdowns imposed in the State amid the pandemic.
G Krishnegowda vs Karnataka even if an individual is not a public servant, but if he is discharging public duty by virtue of his office, he is answerable to the State and public and he comes within the ambit of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Seema Shakya v/s The Board of Secondary Education over the steep decline in the standard of education in primary schools in Government Sector has observed that salaries, allowances, and perquisites attached to the post of a primary teacher in the Government Sector should be attractive.
Sunil Hirasingh Rathod Vs Maharashtra the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) that mere recovery of tainted money from the accused in the absence of proof of demand is not sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Harvinder Kaur Vishakha Singh vs Tarvinder Singh K Singh in First Appeal No. 1476 of 2007 has directed an employer to compensate the kin of a truck driver, observing that the stress and strain caused during his employment had ultimately led to his demise.
There are many advanced methods of recruitment like automated communication applications, company review platforms, social media, virtual conference via video conferencing, AI for smooth hiring process, and application tracking systems, etc.
Rattan Lal Bharadwaj vs HP the provisions of ‘equal pay for equal work’ envisaged under Article 39(d) of the Constitution is a constitutionally enforceable right.
Maharashtra v Ajay Ratansingh Parmar that mere recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to establish the guilt of an accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Union of India vs M Duraisamy that of compulsory retirement observed that punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority can’t be substituted merely on grounds that the employee had voluntarily deposited the defrauded amount.
Jaising Nivrutti Sonawane Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation that: The approach in this country of believing that when one works for government no action can ever be taken no matter how persistently one
Abhilash Kumar R vs Kerala Books and Publication Society that the right to pension is a constitutional right and that pensions cannot be paid to retired employees merely at the whims and fancies of the employers.
Pralhad Bhaurao Thale vs Union of India has refused to grant relief to a Head Constable who was found sleeping while on duty. The Court thus dismissed his plea challenging the penalty of compulsory retirement that was imposed upon him.
Murad Ali Sajan & UT of J&K that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee; such position can be filled only by a candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed.
Ramesh Chandra Gupta vs State of UP that the criminal proceedings can be quashed when the complaint on the basis of which FIR was registered does not disclose any acts of the accused or their participation in the commission of crime.
Javaid Ahmad Akhoon Vs J&K that the Government can place necessary restrictions for smooth functioning of a particular trade, however, such restrictions must not be unreasonable particularly when the same are aimed to regulate the trade of unemployed skilled youth of a troubled area.
Virendra K Singh Chauhan v. U.P. that: Once the petitioner has retired from service on 31.12.2001, there was no authority vested in the corporation for continuing the departmental proceeding even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the petitioner.
Abhay Kumar Kispotta v/s Chhattisgarh that providing 100% female reservation is unconstitutional. quashed the provisions of a law framed by the Chhattisgarh government which specified that only female candidates are eligible for direct recruitment to the posts of demonstrators, professors and principals in government nursing colleges.
Madan Lal vs RajasthanIn such cases, no mercy can be shown to such persons who are indulged in grave misconduct and they are required to be dealt with iron hands in order to culminate the ills prevailing in the government departments today.
Hari Singh vs Rajasthan that when rules prescribe certain code of conduct for government employees and bars them from leading an immoral life, the same cannot be violated on the ground that Indian mythology permits the same.
Chanchal Singh vs UOI that the refusal to undergo promotion cadre test disentitles defence personnel from the periodic financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP).
Shanti Devi vs Jharkhand that pension and gratuity benefits for employees cannot be withheld while criminal proceedings are ongoing.
Top