FAQ

Section 98 ERA sets out the potentially fair reasons for dismissal, such as conduct, capability, redundancy, or statutory restriction. But it also makes clear that a tribunal must decide whether the dismissal was fair overall, not just whether the reason was valid.

👉 See our full guide: Section 98 ERA 1996 – The Foundation of Unfair Dismissal Law

The “reasonableness” test in section 98(4) ERA asks whether the employer acted reasonably in all the circumstances. It’s not enough to have a valid reason — the process and decision itself must also be fair.

👉 Read more here: Section 98 ERA 1996 – The Foundation of Unfair Dismissal Law

Tribunals recognise that small employers may have fewer resources than large corporations. However, all employers are still expected to act reasonably and consider alternatives before dismissal.

👉 Explained in detail: Section 98 ERA 1996 – The Foundation of Unfair Dismissal Law

A person is disabled under section 6 if they have a physical or mental impairment with a substantial, long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

👉 Learn more: S6 EqA 2010 – The Basis of Unfair Dismissal Law

Yes. Even if you don’t meet the Equality Act definition of disability, your employer must still act fairly under section 98(4) ERA 1996. Being “not disabled” does not remove their duty to consider alternatives before dismissing.

👉 Full article: S6 EqA 2010 – The Basis of Unfair Dismissal Law

Occupational health opinions are advisory, not binding. Employers must look at the whole picture, not just rely on an OH report that says you are “unlikely disabled.” Rushing to dismissal based on that alone can be unfair.

👉 Read more: S6 EqA 2010 – The Basis of Unfair Dismissal Law

Section 2 requires employers to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, safe systems of work, safe equipment and handling, safe workplace conditions, and adequate welfare and environment for all employees.

👉 See the breakdown: S2 HSWA 1974 – The Basis of Unfair Dismissal Law

If absence or performance issues are linked to unsafe working conditions, employers must consider this before dismissal. Ignoring health and safety risks can make a dismissal unfair under section 98(4) ERA.

👉 Full explanation: S2 HSWA 1974 – The Basis of Unfair Dismissal Law

No. If the refusal is based on genuine health and safety concerns, it is not misconduct. Employers must address the safety issue, not punish the employee.

👉 Learn more: S2 HSWA 1974 – The Basis of Unfair Dismissal Law

The most common grounds include procedural flaws (e.g., no fair hearing), inconsistency in applying policies, failure to consider alternatives, or ignoring health/disability factors.

👉 Read our overview: Unfair Dismissal In-Depth Analysis

Tribunals assess whether the employer acted within the “range of reasonable responses.” They ask: would a reasonable employer, in these circumstances, have dismissed — and was the process itself fair?

👉 See details: Unfair Dismissal In-Depth Analysis

Keep everything: invitation letters, outcome letters, absence records, occupational health reports, and notes from hearings. These documents can expose flaws in the employer’s process.

👉 Checklist here: Unfair Dismissal In-Depth Analysis