Dismissal misconduct

Demerits assessed for conduct delinquencies were also taken into consideration in determining a candidate s ability to accommodate himself to the disciplinary requirements of the course. Delinquencies were grouped into four classes, each carrying appropriate demerit values. These were published for the information of candidates in an OCS instruction circular. Serious offenses w ere in most cases brought before an Honor Committee of the student body which recommended to the director of the Officer Candidate School whether the offense merited dismissal. Misconduct, however, accounted for only a small number of separations on the whole the behavior of officer candidates was exemplary. 

Monetary eligibility can usually be determined at the time of benefit application. Non-monetary eligibility can be reviewed and disputed by the separating employer, who may assert that a worker left voluntarily or was dismissed for misconduct. Continuing eligibility requires a continuous status of able, available, and actively seeking work. 

In some occupations, employees are required to exercise special skills and where failure to exercise those particular skills could result in serious injury or even death to others, a special duty rests on the person required to exercise the skill. Such a failure occurred in the case of Taylor v. Alidair Ltd ° where Taylor, a pilot, caused severe damage when landing a passenger-carrying plane. Taylor s subsequent dismissal was held to be fair - a decision confirmed by Lord Denning in the Court of Appeal. As a result of this case, tribunals are likely to measure the fairness of a dismissal for an employee s misconduct by assessing the potential consequences of the breach of the safety requirement. 

The employer should ensure that, except for gross misconduct, no employee is dismissed for a first breach of discipline. Instead the employer should operate a system of warnings consisting of an oral warning, a first written warning and then a final written warning before dismissal is considered. 

Misconduct in the place of work, or in certain circumstances outside it, is one of the major reasons for dismissal of an employee. It was defined by the Scottish EAT as Actings [sic] of such a nature, whether done in the course of employment or out of it, that reflect in some way on the employer-employee relationship. ... 

In cases of dismissal for misconduct it is essential that the employer has acted reasonably and fairly in all the circumstances. Although decided in 1978, the case of British Home Stores v. Burchelf still provides the basic guidelines to whether or not an employer has acted reasonably. The judgement in that case clearly sets out the steps an employer must take before dismissing an employee on the grormds of gross misconduct as ... 

A termination within the meaning of the Staff Regulations and Rules is any separation from service initiated by the Director-General other than the expiration of a contract, non-confirmation of a contract at the end of probation, retirement at the age of 62 years or more or summary dismissal for serious misconduct. 

The Director-General may summarily dismiss staff for serious misconduct. In such cases no termination indemnity shall be payable. 

---