Employment Agreement Frustrated

Mr. Warner filed complaints of unfair dismissal, breach of state and discrimination on the basis of disability. He argued that he had been dismissed. Armfield argued in a very unusual way that with respect to the unjustified dismissal and violation of contractual rights, the employment contract was thwarted, but that with respect to the right to discrimination on the basis of disability, they accepted that he had been dismissed. The Tribunal accepted the argument of frustration with respect to wrongful dismissal and offence, but found that armfield had not made appropriate adjustments to the obstruction discrimination complaint. The two-year theory seems to have its origin in the fact that most disability insurance provides that benefits are paid for the first two years if a person is unable to perform their current work. However, after two years, most policies change and pay benefits only if the individual is unable to work. What often happens is that the employer learns that the person on leave has cut his or her disability benefits. The employer then concludes that it has the right to terminate the employment relationship or to insist that the worker is no longer disabled and must therefore return his work. Otherwise, the employer threatens to terminate the employment relationship or „the person feels that he or she has given up his or her job.” One way or another, they are wrong. It is a well-established law that the doctrine of frustration can be the application of employment contracts when a worker cannot work because of an illness or disability. In these circumstances, the reason is that illness or disability makes it impossible to perform the employment contract.

If the employment contract has been thwarted by the employer rather than terminated, it is not mandatory for the employer to submit a dismissal or dismissal instead of dismissal. The risk of frustration is that the employer sees the employment contract as frustrated by mistake, that it no longer paid the employee and that it constructively dismisses the worker – triggering unpayability rather than dismissal. Beyond the surprising result, the decision describes how the doctrine of frustration applies in the context of employment.