SCHOOL OF BUSINESS

COURSE MGMT 358 - LABOUR RELATIONS AND EMPLOYMENT LAWS

COURSE LECTURER - WANG’UBA MAGANDA

By

PHILORIAN M. MPENDAYE
ID. NO. 2011101022

Question: Summary dismissal is both fair and unfair. Discuss

Date of Submission: 9th of June, 2014

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents i

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 Grounds for Fair Summary Dismissal 1

2.1 Gross Misconduct 1

2.2 Habitual Neglect of Duty 2

2.3 Willful Disobedience of Lawful and Reasonable Orders 3

2.4 Absence from Work without Permission 4

2.5 Incapability of Performance associated with Lack of Skills 5

3.0 Grounds for Unfair Summary Dismissal 6

3.1 Pregnancy or Maternity Leave 6

3.2 Refusal of Unlawful Orders 7

3.3 Disclosure of Information 8

3.4 Participation in Trade Union Activities 9

3.5 Isolated Number of Incidents of Misconduct 9

3.6 Disability related to Illness or Injury 10

3.7 Discrimination at Workplace 11

4.0 CONCLUSION 12

BIBLIOGRAPHY 13

i
1.0 INTRODUCTION

A summary dismissal occurs where the employer terminates the employment contract without
notice (Lewis, L and Sergeant, M., 2013). The legal relationship between employer and
employee comes to an end immediately without any period of notice. The employee guilty of
conduct that is tantamount to a repudiation of the contract of employment, thereby forfeits his or
her right to notice and may be dismissed summarily. In practice, an employer should not dismiss
summarily without first investigating the circumstances and giving the employee an opportunity
to present his or her side of the story. The summary dismissal is essentially an instant dismissal
which has immediate effect ignoring contractual or statutory rights of notice.

Summary dismissal can be justified only in quite exceptional circumstances (Turner, C., 2013).
On the other hand summary dismissal is considered as automatically unfair for an employer to
dismiss an employee regardless of length of service for without objectively justified reason. The
law on termination is covered by Sections 35 to 44 of the Employment and Labour Relations Act
No. 6 of 2004 and Rules 3 to 22 of the Employment and Labour Relations (Code of Good
Practice) Rules, 2007 (G.N. No. 42 of 2007). Employment could be brought to an end by
agreement, automatic termination, by employee’s resignation and constructive termination Urio,
A, M, A and Urio, J. F (2011). The notice period usually provided for in the contract agreement
or other statutory method relevant to the employment.

2.0 GROUNDS FOR FAIR SUMMARY DISMISSAL

There are exceptional circumstances where the notices or any requirements to give notice will
not be necessary. In such situations, the employer can summarily dismiss the employee without
notice. Summary dismissal is fair on the following grounds that are justifiable before the law:

2.1 Gross Misconduct

Summary dismissal is justified in the event of employee’s gross misconduct which results in a
breach of contract going to the root of the employment contract. Gross misconduct not consistent
with the fulfilment of the conditions of employment amount to the summary dismissal (Lewis, L

1
and Sergeant, M., 2013:95). In order to justify summary dismissal the employee must be in
breach of an important express or implied term of the contract that is be guilty of gross
misconduct. Dismissal for misconduct will only be fair if the employee broke a rule of conduct
in the workplace, the rule was reasonable and necessary, the employer applied the rule
consistently and it is appropriate to dismiss the employee for this reason.

Misconduct of the employee may be a grave error in the circumstance that it could be categorised
as gross misconduct when opens to a reasonable employer an opportunity to dismiss the
employee summarily. It does not matter that, it is the first time the grave error of misconduct was
committed by the employee. In the case of Usen v Bank of West Africa Limited [1965] 1 AII
NLR 2441, the bank manager falsified a bank teller and issued it to a customer. The fraud was
discovered and employer manager was summarily dismissed. He pleaded that, of his 14 years of
service to the bank, this is his first misconduct. The Supreme Court upheld the summary
dismissal on the grounds that the employee’s conduct in falsifying was one of the material
dishonesty and breach of trust; his employer was justified in losing confidence in his integrity
and in dismissing him without notice.

2.2 Habitual or Substantial Neglect of Duty

Habitual or substantial neglect of duty is another reason to justify for lawful summarily dismissal
of an employee. The employer is allowed to terminate an employee for gross and habitual
neglect of duties. For the neglect of duty to be valid ground for dismissal, there must be both
gross and habitual. Gross negligence refers to the lack of care in the performance of employee’s
duties while habitual neglect implies a repeated failure to perform one’s duties for a period of
time depending on the circumstances. In the case of Arsenio S. Quiambao v Manila Electric
Company G.R. No. 171023 [2009]2 in Philippines, petitioner (Arsenio S. Quiambao) was
employed as branch teller by respondent Manila Electric Company Office for the handling and
processing of payments. Petitioner has repeatedly violated the Company Code of Employee
Discipline specifically excessive unauthorized absences. Through a notice of dismissal,

1
Case Reference: (1) Ningi v. First Bank of Nigeria PLC [1996] 3 NWLR (Pt.435) 220 (2) Yusuf v.
Union Bank of Nigeria [1996] 6 NWLR (Pt.457) 632.
2
Case Reference: Aland D. Gustilo v Wyeth Philippines, Inc., Filemon Verzano, JR., Aurelio Mercado
and Edgar Epilepsia [2004] G.R. No. 149629

2
petitioner’s employment was terminated effective March 29, 2000. On July 3, 2001, petitioner
filed a complaint before the Arbitration against respondent assailing the legality of his dismissal.

He also claimed that he was denied due process. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for a
lack of merit. The Supreme Court denied petition for lack of merit. The Labor Arbiter, National
Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals found that petitioner’s unauthorised
absences and repeated infractions of company rules on employee discipline manifest gross and
habitual neglect of duty that merited the imposition of the supreme penalty of dismissal from
work. Serious misconduct is said to be a transgression of some established and definite rule of
action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and indicative of wrongful
intent and not mere error of judgment.

2.3 Willful Disobedience of Lawful and Reasonable Orders

Willful disobedience of the employer’s lawful and reasonable orders and instructions is another
justifiable reason for summary dismissal. The employees are bound to follow reasonable and
lawful orders and instructions of the employer which are in connection with their work. Failure
to do so may be a ground for dismissal, which means that willful disobedience to lawful orders
and instructions by the employee as one of the just cause for termination of employment by the
employer. When the service of an employee is terminated on the grounds of failure to obey
lawful or standing orders, the powers of this Court to interfere are limited. It is not a question of
what this Court would have done if it was placed in the position of the employer. It does not
substitute its own judgement for that of the employer. It will interfere only when something
repugnant to the fundamental principles of social justice has taken place. The dismissal is not so
unreasonably harsh as to amount to unfair labour practice and for the Court to interfere.

The requirements of willful disobedience as a ground for termination of employment contract is

illustrated under the case of Gold City Integrated Port Service, Inc. v National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R No. 8600, [1990]3 in Philippines. Jose Bacalso (private respondent) was
employed as an admeasurer by the petitioner Gold City Integrated Port Services, Inc. He was

3
Case Reference: (1) Century Textile Mills, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 161 SCRA 528
[1988] (2) Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company v. Court of Appeals, 71 SCRA 470 [1976]

3
suspected by management of under measuring cargo. Hence, on 23 January 1987, the cargo
control officer ordered two (2) other admeasurers to re-measure three (3) pallets of bananas
which had already been measured by Jose Bacalso and revealed that he had under-measured the
bananas by 1.427 cubic meters. He quarreled with one of the admeasurers in the presence of the
Chief Admeasurer in the office and ignored the directive of stopping provoking. On 11 April
1987, Jose Bacalso was terminated from job upon the grounds of assaulting a co-employee and
of insubordination and he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The court explained that willful
disobedience of the employer’s lawful orders as a just cause for dismissal of an employee,
envisages the concurrence of at least two requisites: the employee’s assailed conduct must have
been willful or intentional, the willful being characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude,
and the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee and must
pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge.

2.4 Absence from Work without Permission or Defence Reasonability

Also, absence from work without permission or defence reasonability of conduct is another
justifiable ground for summarily dismissal as a fair action. Absence from work does not only
mean not being at work, also it means arriving late, leaving early, extended break time, attending
to private business during working hours and not attending to his or her duties in terms of the
employment contract. Unauthorised absence from work and repeated infractions of company
rules on employees discipline manifest gross and habitual neglect of duty that merit the
imposition of the supreme penalty of dismissal from work. In the case that was considered by the
High Court of China is illustrative of the kind of cumulative incidents of misconduct which may
justify summary dismissal.

In Ying Kee Safes and Furniture Limited v Wong Yam Tak [1996] 1 HKC 307,4 the High Court
considered the case of an employee who had been summarily dismissed for his persistent
lateness and attitude towards his employer. The court described lateness as an absence without
leave, and the employee’s repeated lateness was a series of unauthorised absence which
amounted to misconduct. The employee had been warned about his lateness, and his repeated
lateness was a failure to comply with a lawful and reasonable order made by his employer. The
4
Case Reference: (1) Fong Yee Dung v Swire Properties Management Limited LDLA 62/[2000] (2)
Yeung Chee-kiu v Lam Chee (t/a Yau Fat Furniture Co) [1966] HKDCLR 65

4
decision of the court was that the employee was not entitled to separation pay on the ground for
dismissal due to gross and habitual absence from work.

2.5 Incapability of Performance associated with Lack of Skills

Summary dismissal is also fair on the incapability grounds associated with lack of skills that
employee possess to have. The employee is incapable of doing his job to required standard. The
employment contact and the job instructions or work rules form the basis for what constitutes an
employee’s work duties and tasks with the enterprise. The employer may make demands as to
the quality of the work carried out by the employee. Section 37(2) (b) of the Employment and
Labour Relations Act No. 6 of 2004 provides fair reason for termination of employment by the
employer. A fair reason is the one that is related to the employee’s conduct, capability or
compatibility. Deciding for a dismissal on the ground of lack of skills, the employer should
consider that the employee was aware of the skills required, required standard and given a fair
chance to meet the standard.

In the case of Olebile v. Collect-A-Can Botswana (Pty) Limited [2000] (2) BLR 397 (IC).5
Olebile was dismissed from employment as a branch secretary on the grounds of unsatisfactory
work performance, refusal to obey lawful and reasonable instructions, and insubordination and
insolence. The applicant (Merapelo Olebile) applied to the Industrial Court claiming
compensation for unfair termination of her contract of employment and notice pay. It was held
that a failure or refusal to obey an instruction had to be sufficiently serious to warrant dismissal;
and in the instant case, on the evidence, it was serious enough to warrant summary dismissal,
that is a dismissal without notice; insolence was a failure of an employee to show respect
towards his or her employer or senior and could include the undermining of the employer's
authority. The applicant was guilty of insolence in the extreme which amounted to serious
misconduct, warranting summary dismissal of the applicant; and on the evidence, the applicant's
poor work performance was due to gross negligence on her part, which in the particular
circumstances of the instant case amounted to serious misconduct warranting summary
dismissal. The court consequently made determination that the termination of the contract of
employment of the applicant, Merapelo Olebile was lawful and substantively and procedurally
5
Case Reference: (1)   Mosedame v. Institute of Development Management [1997] B.L.R. 1 (I.C.) (2)
Motsumi v. First National Bank of Botswana Limited [1995] B.L.R. 713 (I.C.)

5
fair; the applicant therefore has no claims against the respondent based on the termination of her
contract of employment and no order was made as to costs.

3.0 GROUNDS FOR UNFAIR SUMMARY DISMISSAL

Despite the fact that above reasonable grounds justify summary dismissal as a fair procedure for
termination of employment, the employment law describes that summary dismissal as an
employer’s action when terminating an employee’s employment contrary to the requirements of
the employment rights. It is automatically unfair for an employer to dismiss an employee
regardless of length of service for without objectively justified reasons, thus the circumstances
amount to unlawful dismissal. Therefore, summary dismissal is expressly referred to as unfair
termination of employment in the following circumstances:

3.1 Pregnancy or Maternity Leave

In the event that summary dismissal to a female employee enjoying special protection especially
pregnant woman and or women on maternity leave. A female employee who has served notice of
her pregnancy is protected from dismissal, other than in circumstances justifying a summary
dismissal during the period from the date on which her pregnancy is confirmed by a medical
certificate to the date on which she is due to return to work after her maternity leave or the date
of the cessation of the pregnancy other than by reason of giving birth that is by miscarriage or
abortion. Section 37(3) (b) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act No. 6 of 2004 provides
that it is seen to be unfair to dismiss an employee for reason related to pregnancy.  In addition
Section 41(4) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act No. 6 of 2004 provides that notice of
termination shall not be given (a) during any period of taken under this Act; or (b) to run,
concurrently with any such period of leave.

Also, section 36 of the Employment and Labour Relations Act No. 6 of 2004 provides that
failure to allow the employee to resume work after taking maternity leave granted under the
Employment and Labour Relations Act No. 6 of 2004 or any agreed maternity leave is
considered to be termination of employment, and therefore, if unilaterally decided by the
employer, the fair reason requirement shall apply. In the case of Sun Min v Hong Kong Ming
Wah Shipping (2006) 9 HKCFAR 49 (CFA), [2006] 1 HKLRD 75 (CFA), [2006] 1 HKC 423

6
(CFA); [2005] 1 HKC 381 (CA); [2004] 2 HKC 16, the employee who had served a medical
certificate and a notice on her employer of her pregnancy was informed that she was to be
transferred back to the mainland to work for a mainland subsidiary a month later. She was
unwilling to accept the transfer and in the event did not report to work on the mainland and filed
a claim. The Court of Appeal held that there is no basis for cutting down this protection by
pointing to an offer of an alternative employment under a new contract with some other entity,
albeit an entity which is a member of the same group of companies.

3.2 Refusal of Unlawful Orders

In the incidence when an employee fails or refuses to do what the employer may not lawfully
permit or require an employee to do, summary dismissal is regarded as unfair act of terminating
employment by the employer. Section 37(3) (ii) of the Employment and labour Relations Act
No. 6 of 2004 provides that it shall not be fair reason to terminate employment of an employee if
fails or refuses to do anything that an employer may not lawfully permit or require the employee
to do. The law appears to protect the employees when fail or refuse to do what the employer may
not lawfully permit or require them to do. Refusing to obey an unlawful order such as working
outside the contract address or performing non domestic duties is not a valid reason for summary
termination of employment.

The reading case of Michelle Harding v Petzetakis Africa (Pty) Limited of [2011] 7 by the
Labour Court of South Africa, where Michelle Harding (Managing Director of Petzetakis Africa)
found herself in an unenviable position when she was instructed by the group of CEO and
Chairman of the Board to summarily dismiss the two employees without holding disciplinary
action. Her refusal to comply with instructions resulted in the company dismissing her. Through
the ruling by the Labour Court of the South Africa the dismissal was found to be automatically
unfair and it was in breach of the Labour Relations Act of 1995 and the Companies Act.
Michelle Harding was of the view that the instructions were unreasonable and unlawful.

3.3 Disclosure of Information

6
Case Reference: (1) H v Lau Ka Yee Michael [2006] 4 HKLRD 579, [2006] 4 HKC 524 (2) Flywin
Company Limited v Strong and Associates Limited [2002] 5 HKCFAR 356
7
Case Reference: Kroukam v SA Airlink (Pty) Limited [2005] 26 ILJ 2153 (LAC) (2) SA Chemical
Workers Union and others v Afrox Limited [1999] 20 ILJ 1718 (LAC)

7
Summary dismissal is unfair to an employee in the event that the employee discloses the
information is entitled to disclose. Section 37(3) (a)(i) of the Employment and Labour Relations
Act No. 6 of 2004 provides that it shall not be a fair reason to terminate the employment of a
employee in the event that the employee discloses information that the employee is entitled or
required to disclose to another person under this Act or any other law. One exception to the duty
not to misuse or divulge confidential information arises where disclosure by the employee or ex-
employee is in public interest. It is inadmissible and automatically unfair to dismiss an employee
if the reason for the dismissal is that the employee had made a protected disclosure. A protected
disclosure means any disclosure of information to an employer or other responsible person
which, in the reasonable belief if the person making the disclosure tends to show that a criminal
offense has been committed is being committed or is likely to be committed; that a person has
failed, is failing or is likely to comply with any legal obligation to which he or she is subject; that
a misconduct of justice has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur; that the health or safety of
any individual has been, is being or is likely to be damaged; that the environment has been, is
being or is likely to be damaged; or that information or evidence concerning any of the above
matters has been, or is likely to be, deliberately concealed (Chandler, P., 2003:102).

In the case of Virgo Fidelis Senior School v Boyle [2004] 1 RLR 268, EAT 8, the decision
followed a merits hearing in March 2003 which decided in a promulgated decision on 28 May
2003 that Boyle had been unfairly dismissed and victimised for making a public interest
disclosure. That decision had held that Boyle had been unfairly dismissed; that he had made a
protected disclosure by writing a letter making explicit allegations against various members of
the school staff to the Diocese of Southwark, and (iii) that the school's action in thereafter
disciplining him and dismissing him for making that disclosure amounted to a detriment,
therefore had rights for compensation as this was capable of constituting proper disclose of
information in the public interest.

3.4 Participation in Trade Union Activities

8
Case Reference: (1) Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2003] ICR 318 (2) Dunnachie v
Kingston upon Hull City Council [2003] ICR 1294 [FN2]

8
However, summary dismissal automatically unfair dismissal under employment law if the
principal reason for it was that the employee had taken part of proposed to take part, in the
activities of an independent trade union at an appropriate time. Under the provision of the law,
Section 37 (3) (a)(iv) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act No. 6 of 2004 provides that
it shall not be a fair reason to terminate the employment of an employee in the event the
employee belongs or belonged, to any trade union. Under the provision of Section 9(1) of
Employment and Labour Relations Act No. 6 of 2004 provides employee’s right to freedom of
association which states as every employee shall have the right (a) to form and join a trade
union; and (b) to participate in the lawful activities of the trade union.

Also, Section 37(3)(iv) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act No. 6 of 2004 provides
that it shall not be a fair reason to terminate the employment of an employee belongs, or
belonged to any trade union. In the case of Dundon v GPT Limited [1995] IRLR 403, EAT9, it
was held that it was automatically unfair to select a trade union official for redundancy because
he was spending far too much time on his union duties. This constituted unfair selection by
reason of participating in trade union activities, even though the employer had not been
motivated by malice or a deliberate desire to be rid of a union activist. The court also overruled
the industrial tribunal's assessment that the official was 75% to blame for his dismissal and
substitutes a figure of 33%.

3.5 Isolated Number of Incidents of Misconduct

In the event where an employer is seeking to rely on a number of incidents of misconduct which,
if taken in isolation do not constitute grounds for summary dismissal. It is still to view the
cumulative effect of these incidents as sufficient to justify a dismissal without notice. This case
does nothing to change the position but it does serve as a useful illustration of how the courts
will; require clear evidence of the cumulative effect of the incidents on the employment
relationship. Serious incidents of violence or threats of violence at the workplace are considered
sufficient grounds for discharge. So are also serious crimes against the employer’s properties.
Protracted participation in an illegal strike continuing after the Labour Court had ordered the
strikers to resume work is deemed sufficient reason for discharge.
9
Case Reference: (1) Driver v Cleveland Structural Engineering Company Limited [1994] IRLR 636 EAT
(2) O’Dea v ISC Chemicals Limited [1995] IRLR 599, CA

9
The case of McCormack v Hamilton Academical Football Club Limited [2011] CSIH 68
A902/0810 at Extra Division Court Session of High Court decided that an employee was wrongful
dismissed despite evidence of misconduct over a relative short period of time. Although a series
of incidents of minor misconduct could cumulatively constitute grounds to dismiss an employee
without notice, in this case there was little evidence that the employer had regarded each such
individual incidents as significant. The absence of any documentary evidence in support will
likely mean that employers are unable to successfully defend such decisions.

3.6 Disability Related to Illness or Injury

The circumstances that have been specifically as unfair reason for termination of employment if
such termination is on the reason related to disability. Section 37(3) (b)(ii) of the Employment
and labour Relations Act No. 6 of 2004 provides that it shall not be a fair reason to terminate the
employment of an employee for reasons related to disability. If an employee is temporary unable
to work in the grounds of ill health or injury, the employer should investigate the extent of the
incapability or the injury. If the employee is likely to be absent for a time that is unreasonably
long in the circumstances, the employer should investigate all the possible short of dismissal. In
cases of permanent incapability, the employer should ascertain the possibility of securing
alternative employment, or adapting the duties or work circumstances of the employees to
accommodate the employee’s disability.

In the case of Converform (Darwen) Limited v Bell [1981] IRLR 19511, a director suffered from
a heart attack and had time of work. When he had recovered his employer refused to let him back
to work arguing that he was at risk of another heart attack. The director claimed unfair dismissal.
It was held that the risk of another heart attack alone could not be a fair ground for dismissal
under capacity. It would only be relevant of the risk made it unsafe for the employee in his work.

3.7 Discrimination at Workplace

10
Case Reference: (1) Thomas v Thomas 1947 SC (HL) 45 (2) Biogen Inc. v Medeva Public Limited
Company [1997] RPC 1
11
Case Reference: (1) International Sport Limited v Thompson [1980] IRLR 340 (2) East Lindsey District
Council v Daubney [1977] IRLR 181

10
The discrimination in the work place can certainly lead to wrongful termination of employment
of an employee. Section 7(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act No. 6 of 2004
provides that every employer shall ensure that he promotes an equal opportunity in employment
and service and strives to eliminate discrimination in any employment policy of practice. Also,
Section 7(4) of the Act provides that no employer shall discriminate, directly or indirectly
against an employee, in any employment policy or practice, or any of the following ground;
colour; nationality; tribe or place of origin; race; national extraction; political origin or religion;
sex; gender; pregnancy; marital status or family responsibility; disability; HIV/AIDS; age or
station of life. Therefore, employment discrimination occurs when an individual is adversely
discriminated against due to any number of factors, including colour; nationality; tribe or place
of origin; race; national extraction; political origin or religion; sex; gender; pregnancy; marital
status or family responsibility; disability; HIV/AIDS; age or station of life. These are among the
grounds on various types of employment discrimination that happens in hiring employees and at
the workplace.

In Caledonia Bureau Investment & Property v Caffrey [1998] EOR78D12, Caffrey was
employed by the appellants and she had maternity leave in 1996. She experienced post-natal
depression after delivery of which she had to extend a leave upon medical advice. She was later
dismissed with pay in lieu of notice on grounds of her illness. She claimed that the dismissal was
both unfair and sex discriminatory. The Court ruled that dismissal of a woman because of a
pregnancy related illness is automatically unfair. A termination during maternity leave or a
significant alteration of duties after a return from maternity leave and then a termination many
constitution discrimination on the ground of parental responsibilities and be in breach of the
relevant industrial law (Ronalds, C and Raper, E., 2012:226).
4.0 CONCLUSION

In sum, given the fact that summary dismissal herein referred to as termination of employment
without notice, it means after the hearing process is accomplished and found that the employee is
guilty of misconduct punishable by summary dismissal, the role of the employer is to order the
12
Case Reference: (1) Crees v Royal London Insurance [1997] IRLR 85 EAT (2) Kwik Save Stores
Limited v Greaves [1997] IRLR 268 EAT

11
employee out of employment without notice or even if the notice is given it is not a one month
notice nor one month salary in lieu of notice. In the event of summary dismissal the employee is
not paid any terminal benefits. Such as repatriation subsistence allowance, and one month salary
in lieu of notice. Termination of employment is a lesser penalty to summarily dismissal, which
the employer may opt instead of summary dismissal. The Employment and labour Relations Act
No. 6 of 2004 and Employment and Labour Relations (Code of Good Practice) Rules, 2007
(G.N. No. 42 of 2007) provide in details the forms of termination and procedures to be adopted
in each case. A lawful termination of employment under common law involves termination of
employment by agreement, automatic termination, constructive termination, termination of
employment by employee and termination of employment by the employer.

Therefore, summary dismissal occurs where the employer terminates the contract of employment
without notice. An instant dismissal has no legal definition but refers to a dismissal without
investigation or enquiry. Whereas instant dismissal is likely to be procedurally defective in unfair
dismissal terms, a summary dismissal may be lawful under employment law. In order to justify
summary dismissal the employee must be in breach of an important express or implied term of
the contract, such as be guilty of gross misconduct, habitual neglect of duty, willful disobedience
to lawful orders, absence from work without permission and incompetence performance
associated with lack of skills. However, summary dismissal is regarded as unfair when an
employee is summarily dismissed on the grounds of pregnancy or maternity, refusal of unlawful
orders, disclosure of information, trade union membership or activities, isolated number of
incidents of misconduct, disability and discrimination.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Chandler, P (2003). Waud’s Employment Law: The Practical Guide for Human Resource
Managers, Trade Union Officials, Employers, Employees and Lawyers. Kogan Page
Publishers. London, United Kingdom

Labour Division of the High Court (2009). Knight Support (T) Limited v Chrisprinus S. Kaloli.
Case No. 35 of 2009. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

12
Legal Advice for Women (2010). Being Dismissed, Fined or Laid Off: A Brochure Dealing
with Labour Law. Legal Advice for Women. Oslo, Norway

Lewis, D and Sergeant, M (2013). Employment Law Concentrate: Law Review and Study
Guide. Oxford University Press. Oxford, United Kingdom

Omehia, C. N (2011). Dismissal in Nigeria Labour Law. Anther House Book Publishing.
Indiana, United States of America

Republic of South Africa (2002). Labour Relations Act No. 66 of 1995. Department of Labour.
Pretoria, South Africa

Ronalds, C and Raper, E (2012). Discrimination Law and Practice: Fourth Edition. Federation
Press. New South Wales, United Kingdom

Smith, I and Baker, A (2010). Employment Law: Sixth Edition. Oxford University Press.
Oxford, United Kingdom

The United Republic of Tanzania (2004). Employment and Labour Relations Act No. 6 of 2004.
Tanzania Government Printer. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

The United Republic of Tanzania (2005). The Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania
of 1977 [CAP. 2]. Tanzania Government Printer. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Turner, C (2013). Unlocking Employment Law. Routledge Publishing Company. London,

United Kingdom

Urio, A. M and Urio, J. F (2011). The Law on Employment and Labour Relations in Tanzania.
Internal Printers Limited. Moshi, Tanzania

Walsh, P (2008). Hong Kong Employment Law: A Practical Guide. CCH Hong Kong Limited.
Hong Kong, China

13