When a trade union is recognized by an employer, its members have the right to be released within a reasonable time to participate in trade union activities. These may include: Although employees may be dismissed, the employer can still be held liable for unfair dismissal by initiating unfair proceedings. The procedure followed by the employer in selecting workers to be dismissed must be procedurally fair. In Williams v. Compair Maxam Ltd, Justice Browne-Wilkinson held that the right measures should be to (1) issue all possible warnings, (2) consult with the union, (3) agree on objective criteria, (4) follow those criteria, and (5) always check whether there is employment other than dismissal. This meant that managers who had chosen workers to lose their jobs because of personal preference had wrongly fired the workforce. The criteria used by the employer must be observable and verifiable. However, employers are not required to disclose to employees all the details of their reasoning when choosing who to dismiss, unless there is a specific complaint of unfairness.  The last-in, first-out policy, as applied in many collective agreements, is considered fair. For example, in Rolls Royce plc v.
Unite the Union, Rolls Royce plc challenged a collective agreement that provided for extra points in a competition for years of service as unlawful discrimination against young workers (whom it wished to retain). The Court of Appeal agreed with the union that this was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate goal of rewarding seniority, especially since older workers may have much more difficulty finding alternative employment. If possible, employers should try to redeploy redundant staff within their company. According to Article 141 of the 1996 ERA, a worker must accept an appropriate offer of reinstatement and loses the right to dismissal if he refuses. “Suitable” essentially means similar in terms of status, salary, and types of tasks.  For example, in Thomas Wragg & Sons Ltd v. Wood, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that it was appropriate for Wood to reject another offer of employment the day before his dismissal took effect. It was therefore superfluous.
 Section 138 also provides for the right to refuse another employment to which an employee is transferred after a four-week probationary period if reasonable.  However, reinstatement remains an option for the employer, giving him more flexibility to avoid termination pay. There is not yet a right to reinstatement of the employee, unless the employer must consult on reinstatement options if more than 20 employees are at risk of dismissal.  Although most collective agreements are voluntary, the law seeks to guarantee workers genuine freedom of association by prohibiting employers from discouraging union membership and by creating positive rights for members. First, under sections 137 to 143 of the Consolidated Trade Unions and Labour Relations Act 1992, it is illegal for employers, including agencies, to refuse employment to someone because of their trade union membership. Courts will deliberately interpret legislation to protect union activities with the same rigour as other anti-discrimination laws. Second, Articles 146 to 166 of the TULRCA 1992 stipulate that no disadvantage or dismissal may be imposed on workers. For example, in Fitzpatrick v. the British Railways Board, the commission dismissed a lady who had been a member of a Trotskyist group (promoting international socialism). The Board justified this by failing to inform the employer that she had previously worked for Ford Motor Company, and therefore with “lies and lack of trust.” Woolf LJ believed that this was not the real reason – Trotskyism was the problem.
The dismissal was unlawful under Article 152. Given the formality of the law, the most important case is Wilson and Palmer v. United Kingdom, where Wilson`s salary was not raised by the Daily Mail because he wanted to remain in the collective agreement, and Palmer`s pay was not increased by 10 percent because he refused to agree to leave the union. the NURMTW. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that any ambiguity regarding protection in UK law violates Article 11 of the ECHR, as sections 5 to 7 require more information on the number of voters and the results to be communicated to union members and the certification officer. While some courts have chosen to give greater consideration to the employer`s substantive grounds for termination, they place greater emphasis on the importance of a fair trial for employers. The Consultation, Conciliation and Arbitration Service Code of Conduct (2009) states that good industry practice for disciplinary workers requires, among other things, written warnings, a fair trial by persons who have no reason to object to the employee or an officer involved in the dispute, and the possibility of union representation. Often, a company manual includes its own system, which, if not followed, probably means that the dismissal was unfair.  However, in Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd, the House of Lords held that where a van driver was informed that he had been dismissed immediately, damages may be reduced to zero if an employer can prove that the dismissal took place, whether or not a procedure was followed. In the Employment Act 2002, Parliament tried unsuccessfully to introduce some sort of mandatory minimum procedure for all, but after employers and trade unions complained that it only promoted a “tick-box” culture, it was repealed in the Employment Act 2008.
 Now, if the ACAS Code is not followed, and it is inappropriate, an unfair dismissal can be increased by 25 per cent.  In general, according to sections 119 and 227 of the ERA 1996, the principle of “simple” unfair dismissal applies according to which a worker should receive a weekly wage for each year of employment, with a ceiling of £350 per week and a maximum of 20 weeks, if he is between 22 and 40 years of age, 1 week and a half if he is 40 years of age, and 1/2 per week if under 22. Under section 123 of the BLA 1996, the employee may also be entitled to the larger but discretionary “compensatory bonus”. In doing so, the employee`s actual losses should be considered fair and equitable, based on the immediate and future loss of wages, the mode of dismissal and the loss of unjustified future protection in the event of dismissal and termination rights.  This measure is limited, but usually increases with RPI inflation.