I must begin this essay by saying that I agree with the title as the point in the employment relationship where workers need the most protection is dismissal. I believe this because, in most cases, problems can, of course, arise while a relationship is ongoing, however, most problems tend to arise where the relationship is fractious. At this moment it is essential that the typically weaker party, the worker, receives protection. Therefore, in this essay, I will discuss the protection in place for dismissal and examine whether there is high protection and finish by evaluating my findings and considering any reforms, if any. I first want to examine the implicit term of trust and confidence and its relationship to Johnson's exclusion zone[1]. To proceed further, I must start with the case of Malik[2] where the implied term was given its authority. In the judgment Lord Nicholls defines the implied term as “The [employer's] conduct must, of course, affect the relationship in the sense that, considered objectively, it is likely to destroy or seriously damage the degree of trust and confidence the employee reasonably has right to have in his employer.”[3]. This definition is important for how this decision came about and the impact it has on the employment contract. There is a causal link that needs to be explained between three cases that have shaped future dismissal legislation and are essential to the consideration of the implied term. First, in the 1909 Addis case[4], a man who had lost his job wanted to claim compensation for abuse of office or for non-pecuniary damages resulting from his dismissal. In this case it was decided that non-pecuniary losses (or better known as stigma damages) could not be claimed in the event of dismissal and therefore it became the precedent that cases of dismissal from work can only offer pecuniary damages. It took almost 90 years for this precedent to be considered again in the Malik v BCCI case[5]. The truth is that the employees of BCCI bank wanted to claim the loss of reputation and the inability to find work after having been employed by the corrupt company. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original Essay The bank eventually collapsed and the employees were fired, but the question was asked that although there were no express terms in their contract, do the BCCI have any duties to their employees and if so, what were they, were they were broken and what were the remedies? The House of Lords unanimously held that in all contracts of employment there is an implied trust and confidence clause, Lord Steyn stating that "the employer must not: 'without reasonable and proper reason, behave in a manner such as to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust between employer and employee." It was held that an employer could be liable for damages to an employee whose reputation is damaged by the employer's corrupt business practices even if they become aware of it after dismissal which is why this case stood out Addis was not concerned with direct economic loss but with damage to feelings before the concept of the implied term was realised. The breach of contract occurs at the precise moment when the implied term ceases and not at the moment when the employee comes out of it aware. This then leads to the Johnson case[6] three years later, where the appellant was fired and asked for theunfair dismissal and also compensation for damages due to stigma. He argued that the manner in which he was fired led him to turn to alcohol and other problems in his life. His claim was struck out by the Lords as they affirmed Addis' reasoning that damages for dismissal were limited to economic ones and that his claim for unfair dismissal could only lead to wage recovery. Lord Hoffman assumes that they are not prevailing over Malik, but in fact he states that the implied term of trust and confidence cannot be extended to the point of protecting the employee in the event of dismissal because he is only interested in ongoing relationships. Thus, the accumulation of these three cases gives rise to Johnson's exclusion area where breach of the implied term of trust cannot be used to protect an individual from dismissal. I believe that this constitutes a serious inconvenience in the employment relationship because, as I have already stated, protection in the employment relationship is most necessary at the time of dismissal. Therefore, an implied term that specifically deals with equity 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 statutory conflict and this raises, in my view, questions on two fronts. Firstly because the ruling was wrong because Hoffman had stated that Johnson's claims[7] for his situation would be included in the compensation awarded to him by the court. This would mean that he would be compensated for financial losses resulting from the statute but also for personal losses. This would result in double compensation, which is simply unacceptable. The second question I ask myself brings me to the legal provision on unfair dismissal, Part X Employment Rights Act[8]. I think the provisions on unfair dismissal are very weak in their protection. I want to compare these to contract law where you can make a claim 6 years after the event you are claiming about has occurred. By comparison, you can only appeal for 3 months[9] after dismissal for unfair dismissal. In contract law, there is no financial limit for a breach of contract claim, but again in the ERA there is a statutory limit of £80,541[10]. This cap, whilst it may be high, is almost irrelevant as the average compensation award in 2016 for unfair dismissal was £6,995. Considering a person loses their job, income, and potentially more, a reward of this magnitude is not substantial enough. I must now continue my discussion of the statute by turning to the qualification and procedure that must be followed in order to grant a claim for unfair dismissal. I will first start by saying that only an employee can claim unfair dismissal under Article 230 and the proof in ready-mixed concrete. This in itself means that many people, including police officers, will not be able to claim or be protected from unfair dismissal. Also, I have more problems with the ERA because there is the continuous employment condition[11] of 2 years to qualify again. While this does not include your legal rights to holiday and other types of leave, if you are absent for a reason outside the excluded areas you interrupt the continuity of your employment relationship and the relationship resets to zero. I reiterate that this offers no protection to people who have recently broken their continuity or to people who have been working for less than two years. Then when we move on to the reasons why it is possible.