Scenario One
The case that happened to Jenice Hall and Kelsey Fields is categorized as unfair dismissal. Both of them are working beyond this company for two years and 1 year. Both of them are being dismissed because of unreasonable causes which they have been appointed as a thief by stealing a hard drive. There must be reasonableness of an employee where employee is suspect of theft. Both of them are own the locker where the warehouse manager found the hard drive in their locker. Janice has admitted that he used the locker as usual and she noticed the bag but it wasn’t her so she just assumes it was Kelsey. However, Kelsey state that she had not see the bag at all and claim she had not used the locker for a couple of days because the whether had been good and she was not worn a coat to work. The most important part here that neither of the lady had any disciplinary issues before and they were both rated as good and diligent workers. At the end of the day, both of them sent their appeal of their dismissal decision to the Managing Director however they have reject their appeal. Now both of them submitted unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims to the employment tribunal.
Unfair dismissal can be defined as an employee’s contract is terminated with or without noticed, an employee terminates the contract, with or without notice, in circumstances such that he or she entitled to terminate the contract without noticed by reason of the employer’s conduct. Besides, unfair dismissal also can happen when a temporary (fixed-term) contract comes to an end without its renewal in other case dismissal by an employer is not effective until such time as it has been communicated to the employee for example if the letter of dismissal is sent to an employee while he is away, the dismissal will not be effective until the employee has read the letter (Employment Right Act 1996).This case is one of an increasingly familiar sort in this Tribunal, in which there has been a suspicion or belief of the employee's misconduct entertained by the management, it is on that ground that dismissal has taken place, and the tribunal then goes over that to review the situation as it was at the date of dismissal. The central point of appeal is what is the nature and proper extent of that review. We have had cited to us, we believe, really all the cases which deal with this particular aspect in the recent history of this Tribunal over the three or four years; and the conclusions to be drawn from the cases we think are quite plain. What the tribunal have to decide every time is, broadly expressed, whether the employer who discharged the employee on the ground of the misconduct in question (usually, though not necessarily, dishonest conduct) entertained a reasonable suspicion amounting to a belief in the guilt of the employee of that misconduct at that time. That is really stating shortly and compendiously what in fact more than one element is. First of all, there must be established by the employer the fact of that belief; that the employer did believe it. Secondly, that the employer had in his mind reasonable grounds upon which to sustain that belief. And thirdly, we think, that the employer, at the stage at which he formed that belief on those grounds, at any rate at the final stage at which he formed that belief on those grounds, had carried out as much investigation into the matter as was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. It is the employer who manages to discharge the onus of demonstrating those three matters, we think, who must not be examined further. It is not relevant, as we think that the tribunal would itself have shared that view in those circumstances. It is not relevant, as we think, for the tribunal to examine the quality of the material which the employer had before them, for instance to see whether it was the sort of material, objectively considered, which would lead to a certain conclusion on the balance of probabilities, or whether it was the sort of material which would lead to the same conclusion only upon the basis of being "sure," as it is now said more normally in a criminal context, or, to use the more old-fashioned term, such as to put the matter "beyond reasonable doubt". The test and the test all the way through, is reasonableness; and certainly, as it seems to us, a conclusion on the balance of probabilities will in any survivable circumstance be a reasonable conclusion.
The next thing is the dismissal of employee which is Jenice and Kelsey must bonafide (good faith) and not be poetat (victimize). The dismissal should be fair and equitable which is meaning they can not being dismiss because there are discrepancies understand or dissatisfaction from other party. It these things happen, the injustices are done to them and they have their right to fight for the justice. The investigation must be carried out fairly and the employer can not dismiss the employee without any solid evidence even though the hard drive was found in the employee locker. Evidence from all parties, including the storekeeper should be consider to ensure that the employees will get their justice.

Scenario Two
Regarding of the scenario that happened to Robert Keys, there is a lot of thing that we should take point to note whether Robert should stay or being dismissed for his now position. This case were happened when Robin went for a lunch with one of their company customer and when he return from the lunch, he were involve in a car crash. In this case, we have to look Robin as an employee that went out for lunch which is still in office hour and that showed Robin are in the course of employment because he went for lunch with the company customer. In this car accident, Robert was found innocent and negligence on the party which is the lorry driver when he was sleep while driving the lorry and caused the accident meanwhile, Robert also worried contributed negligence because he was drunk while the accident were happened and if there is a police report that prove Robin were drunk on that time, it can be a good evidence to be used in court. However, there is no clear cut evidence that Robert was drunk and there is no report showed that Robert was drunk although he clearly drinks during lunch. Here, police are negligence because they did not breathalyse Robert and they are over sight due this case. Regarding to the policy of company, there is one thing that employee should know that policy in organization are not being told to the employee which mean they have to know the company policy by their own. I this case, Robert have against the company policy that he has drink while driving the company car. However, there is ‘one-too-many’ which the evidence that said from other people without prove can not be strong enough to clear cut the case.
Now we will consider the injured that suffered by Robert where he had his right hand badly crushed and his right arm was also injured while he has partially lost the use his thumb and forefinger on his right hand. By viewing his condition, Robert totally need the compensation from his company for his medical treatment. Compensation or being compensated can be defined as anything given as equivalent, or to make amends for a loss, damage, unemployment such as accidents. Besides, compensation also can be defines as a payment for services like wages or remuneration. In this case, the company das extended his sick pay giving him the usual pay for the first 3 month and he has been on half pay ever since. However, if he proved drunk during the accident, the compensation will be reduced accordingly. The question here, is half pay is equivalent or fair fro Robert? Here, we have to refer the Employment Right Act 1996 which is the act passed with the intention of addressing issues concerning employment in both the private and public sector. This is preventing illegal and unfair treatment of employees in the workplace. This was particularly in areas such as wage payment, time off, dismissal and redundancy and employment tribunal. In Robert case, he was paid for half pay ever since. Regarding to the Employment Right Act 1996, the compensation for employee must be pay full and the employer are forbidden from cutting the employee wages when they have compensation according their accident while their still in office hour. The compensation are bound for the employee in their critical time and company have no right to reduce their wages because of they have to reclaim the value of compensation that given by company. Here we can say that Robert are unfair compensated by his company where he just been gave half pay for him which is not enough for his treatment. Just like what doctor has said that he has to undergo treatment to ensure he can fully recover.
Even the doctor said that he can comeback for work, with Robert condition now the Sales Director thinks that with the injuries he will not be able to carry his previous workload and Robert have privately confessed to one of his work colleague that he si now very nervous of driving. This is such a hard decision to made whether Robert have to stay or terminated him from the company. Robert is high value employee for that organization where he is the top sales representatives for the last three years and he has been with the company for nearly 9 month. My opinion that Robert should stay and the company do not have to terminate him because Robert is experienced worker. Robert can be transfer to other department as the company has split the sales department into two divisions. One is retail sales where individuals can purchase equipment direct from the company via website while the other division is commercial where companies and other organization purchase the equipment mostly in bulk. As well as we know that Robert have the IT qualifications on computing degree in his early 20’s, that mean he can be change to the other sales department which is he can handle the purchase from customer via website where he do not have to drive and meet outside customer.