Why should the government have a say if a private business fires some one for cause?
Because someone has to be the arbiter of interpersonal relations lest we have blood running in the streets.
What really bothers me about this is that the guy called in sick and was caught going to a pub.
Then they fired him for going to pubs, drinking, and smoking with a ling co dition on numerous occasions. wow, how did one 45-minute trip to the pub one a sick day end up being all that?
Sorry, I have seen too many of those corporate-type situations where one employee is practically shadowed and written up with the absolute worst interpretation of his actions so they can fire him while the sycophants do the same or worse things, which are all overlooked by the powers that be.
It doesn’t do any good to tell the truth to people like that anyway. They will get you one way or the other no matter what they have to do.
That's how the court got involved. They didn't just arbitrarily step into the disagreement and rule without a plaintiff.
Because employment is a contract that’s governed by employment law. Try paying less than the minimum wage or requiring overtime without paying the legal rate and see if you don’t think government has a say. In this case the judge didn’t believe that the employer proved that he had sufficient cause to fire him. The UK is pretty socialist so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that they don’t tend towards the “at will” mindset towards employment.