I must begin this essay by saying that I agree with the title in that the point in the employment relationship where workers most need protection is dismissal. I believe this because, overall, while a relationship is ongoing, problems can arise, but the majority of problems tend to arise when the relationship is strained. It is essential that the generally weaker party, the worker, has protection at this time. Therefore, throughout this essay I will discuss the protection that is in place in the event of dismissal and consider whether there is much protection and ultimately evaluate my findings and consider possible reform, if appropriate. I first want to examine the implicit term trust and its relationship to Johnson's exclusion zone[1]. To go further, we must start with the case of Malik[2] where the implicit term took on its authority. In the judgment, Lord Nicholls defined the implied term as follows: "[The employer's] conduct must, of course, impinge upon the relationship in the sense that, considered objectively, it is likely to destroy or seriously harm the degree of employee confidence. has a reasonable right to have with his employer. »[3]. This definition is important because of how this decision was made and the impact it has on the employment contract. There is a causal link which needs to be explained between three cases which have shaped the law of dismissal in the future and which are central to the consideration of the implied term. Firstly, in Addis[4], in 1909, there was a case where a man who had lost his job wanted to pursue a claim for breach of trust or for non-pecuniary damages arising from his dismissal. It was decided in this case that non-pecuniary losses (or better known as stigma damages) could not be claimed in redundancy cases and therefore became a precedent that redundancy cases cannot offer only monetary damages. It took almost 90 years for this precedent to be considered again in Malik v BCCI[5]. The facts of the case were that BCCI bank employees wanted to file suit for their loss of reputation and inability to find work after being employed by a corrupt company. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essay The bank eventually collapsed and the employees were fired, but the question was asked: even if it was there no express term in their contract, the BCCI have duties to their employees and if so, what were they, had they been breached and what were the remedies? The House of Lords unanimously held that there was an implied term of trust and confidence implied in all contracts of employment, with Lord Steyn stating that "the employer must not: "without reasonable and proper cause, behave in a a manner likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust between the employer and the employee. It has been held that an employer could be held liable for damages to an employee whose reputation is damaged by the employer's corrupt business practices, even if they become aware of them after termination. The reason this case was singled out was that Addis was not concerned with direct economic loss but with injury to feelings before the concept of the implied term was realized. The termination of the contract occurs at the precise moment when the implicit clause was broken and not at the moment when the employee becomes aware of it. This gives usthen leads to the Johnson case[6] three years later, in which the claimant was dismissed and claimed damages for wrongful dismissal as well as stigmatization. He argued that the manner in which he was fired caused him to turn to alcohol and other problems in his life. His claim was struck out by the Lords as they upheld Addis' reasoning that damages for dismissal were limited to economic damages and that his claim for unfair dismissal could only result in recovery of wages. LordHoffman assumes that they are not ruling out Malik, but in fact asserts that the implied term of trust cannot be extended to protect the employee in the event of termination, because it only concerns ongoing relationships. Therefore, the accumulation of these three cases results in Johnson's exclusion zone where breach of the implied term of trust cannot be used to protect a person from dismissal. This is, in my opinion, a major disadvantage in the employment relationship, because, as I have already said, it is upon dismissal that protection in the employment relationship is most necessary. Therefore, an implied term that specifically addresses fairness in the relationship can be used at any time except when you need it most. Expanding on this point, Lord Hoffman's reasoning behind this decision was one of conflict of laws, which in my view raises problems on two fronts. First, because the decision was erroneous because Hoffman stated that Johnson's claims[7] regarding his situation would have been taken into account in the compensation awarded to him by the court. This would mean that he would have been compensated for his financial losses arising from the status but also for the personal losses suffered. This would result in double compensation, which is simply unacceptable. The second question I have brings me to the statutory provision relating to unfair dismissal, Part X of the Employment Rights Act[8]. I think the provisions contained in relation to unfair dismissal are very weak in terms of protection. I want to compare them to contract law where a claim can be made 6 years after the event you are claiming for has occurred. In comparison, there can only be a claim for 3 months[9] after dismissal for unfair dismissal. In contract law there is no financial limit on a claim for breach of contract, but again in the ERA there is a statutory cap of £80,541[10]. This cap, although it may be high, is almost irrelevant as the median compensation award in 2016 for unfair dismissal was £6,995. Considering that a person must lose their job, their income and potentially an award of this magnitude are not substantial enough. I must now continue my discussion of the law by turning to the qualification and procedure which must be followed in order to successfully make a claim for unfair dismissal. I will first start by saying that only an employee can claim unfair dismissal within the meaning of article 230 and the ready-mixed concrete test. This in itself means that many people, including police officers, will not be able to claim or benefit from protection against unfair dismissal. Additionally, I have more problems with the ERA because there is the requirement of continuous employment[11] of 2 years to be eligible again. Although this does not include your legal rights to vacation and other types of leave, if you are absent for any reason outside of the excluded areas, you break the continuity of your employment and it is reset. I repeat that this offers no.