Some managers are aware of the difference between the various types of dismissal that may be executed on an employee. There is an assumption that tribunal claims can only be made where a person has service at least longer than some qualifying period. This is not actually true; there are instances where employee can take an employer to tribunal without any qualifying period of service.

Technically, you can tell an employee that you no longer require them to work for you. You can pay them their notice and invite them to leave. Provided that you have no contractual obligation to use a protracted procedure, you might get away with this course of action. Fair dismissal is narrow and well-defined and hence so too is unfair dismissal.

The Health and Safety Executive has published a framework covering six areas that might result in an employee or employees suffering stress at work (the HSE Management Standards). These are things like lack of control over work and lack of management support. As we note in articles on our site, this framework is a good way of thinking about stress.

In the 1980s, a fairly standard form of appraisal emerged that aimed to assess current performance, improve the individual's performance in the immediate future, set and review performance objectives and assess training and development needs. This paper considers development since then considering applicable research and theory. It concludes that despite methods allowing performance appraisal to become more complex, the themes from the 80s persist today.

Computer systems comprising hardware and software form significant elements in many people’s working lives. In any new system implementation, users are not passive, compliant beings. They have choices. They can react in one of four ways: adoption, compliant acceptance, reluctant acceptance or rejection.

Performance appraisals are worthwhile. Manager and subordinate sitting down together to review performance over the past year provides huge benefit. But for many it’s a time of dread. Unless controlled, both parties will use their power to distort the performance appraisal outcomes in their favour.