IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indlaw/v53y2024i2p125-156..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Implied Term of Procedural Fairness During Disciplinary Processes: Into Contracts of Employment and Beyond?

Author

Listed:
  • Philippa Collins
  • Gabrielle Golding

Abstract

The implication of a new term by law into contracts of employment is significant and relatively rare. In somewhat of a revelation, members of the Court of Appeal in Burn v Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust were receptive to the introduction of a duty that would require employers to act in accordance with procedural fairness during disciplinary processes. This article offers the first detailed examination of this development, commencing by exploring the nature, scope and necessity of such a term in the context of contracts of employment. The relationship between this emergent duty and the ‘Johnson exclusion zone’, which limits the remedies available at common law if the breach of the employer’s obligations alleged is the manner or fact of an employee’s dismissal, will be considered. We argue that the real potential of this duty lies in the prospect that it could be extended beyond contracts of employment and implied into, for example, contracts between workers and their employers. Such a development would be novel for the common law and make a substantial contribution to the regulation of a wider category of working relationships and to the pursuit of the objectives and aims of employment law.

Suggested Citation

  • Philippa Collins & Gabrielle Golding, 2024. "An Implied Term of Procedural Fairness During Disciplinary Processes: Into Contracts of Employment and Beyond?," Industrial Law Journal, Industrial Law Society, vol. 53(2), pages 125-156.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:53:y:2024:i:2:p:125-156.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/indlaw/dwad030
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:53:y:2024:i:2:p:125-156.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ilj .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.