Constructive dismissal: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|hr|}}{{dpn|/kənˈstrʌktɪv dɪsˈmɪsəl/|n|}} | {{a|hr|{{image|diver|jpg|}}{{dpn|/kənˈstrʌktɪv dɪsˈmɪsəl/|n|}} | ||
Of an employer, to behave so abysmally to an an employee as to destroy the [[Uberrimae fidei|sacred relationship between master and servant]] such that the servant feels she has ''no choice'' but to resign, such that the employee can be said to [[Constructive|effectively]] have dismissed her. | Of an employer, to behave so abysmally to an an employee as to destroy the [[Uberrimae fidei|sacred relationship between master and servant]] such that the servant feels she has ''no choice'' but to resign, such that the employee can be said to [[Constructive|effectively]] have dismissed her. | ||
Revision as of 17:26, 4 February 2023
{{a|hr|
 |
Constructive dismissal
/kənˈstrʌktɪv dɪsˈmɪsəl/ (n.)
Of an employer, to behave so abysmally to an an employee as to destroy the sacred relationship between master and servant such that the servant feels she has no choice but to resign, such that the employee can be said to effectively have dismissed her.
One of the great bogeys of the human resources canon. Any suggestion a line manager might make to speak candidly to any of her team presents a “risk of constructive dismissal” and will be stomped on.
This is the HR directors’ equivalent of close out netting, inclusion of ERISA plan assets or “indemnity risk” or securities fraud; a mention of Voldemort type event that is designed to stop all conversation immediately in its tracks. But — at least in theory — one has to behave in quite an outrageous way to undermine that relationship to the point where it cannot continue. It would be interesting to know the actual cost of unjustified dismissal claims over the years.