If no notice period is specified the employee must be given reasonable notice.

When deciding what is reasonable courts will take into account seniority, the employee's intervals of pay, age, length of service and what is usual in the particular trade.

As a very rough guide two weeks or one month might be appropriate, for example, for counter staff; three months for a designer or middle management and between three months and a year for more senior managers and directors.

The length of employment also has a bearing on the notice period. For example, for a member of staff employed for more than one month but less than two years will need a one week notice.

An employee who has been continuously employed for two years, but less than 12 years, is entitled to one week's notice for each year of continuous employment, while any employee who has been employed for over 12 years is entitled to not less than 12 weeks notice.

Course of action Employees do have a course of action that they can follow if they are upset. They can take a claim to an employment tribunal for either compensation for unfair dismissal and/or damages for wrongful dismissal (eg, breach of contract by failing to give adequate notice).

Claims must be brought by the employee within three months of the date of termination, although this may be extended where the employee can demonstrate that it was not reasonably practicable to do so before the end of the three month period.

One of the biggest claims in a tribunal is a claim for unfair dismissal.

Here the tribunal will try to establish whether a dismissal is fair and it will use a two staged approach.

Show the reason The employer must show the reason for the dismissal was one of the five potentially fair reasons (see below); and if proved, the tribunal must then consider whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the employee for that reason.

But dismissals can be fair and employers need to know their rights. There are five potentially fair reasons for dismissal. These are: 1) the capability or qualifications of the employee for performing work of the kind which he or she was employed to do; 2) the conduct of the employee; 3) that the employee was redundant; 4) that the employee could not continue to do his or her job without contravening a duty or restriction imposed by law; 5) some other substantial reason of a kind as to justify the dismissal of an employee holding the position that the employee in question held.

For an employer to beat a claim of unfair dismissal they will need to show they have been reasonable.

General test So the general test is whether in the particular circumstances of each case the decision to dismiss fell within the band of reasonable responses which a reasonable employer might have adopted.

Reasonableness will relate not only to the decision made, but also the process that the employer went through to make the decision.

Thankfully - for employers - the right to bring an unfair dismissal claim takes time to accrue. In order to bring a claim for unfair dismissal in a tribunal the employee must have at least one year's continuous employment under a contract of service to qualify, unless the dismissal is for an automatically unfair reason.

No service requirement There is no service requirement for a claim of wrongful dismissal.

There are times when an absence becomes commercially damaging and it may be necessary and reasonable to dismiss the employee concerned in such a case after due warnings. Provided that the correct procedure is followed the dismissal is likely to be fair.

The basis of the procedure is:

1) a fair review of the sickness record, including the length of absences and the periods of good health between them; 2) an evaluation of the impact of the absences on other employees, together with the damage to service and efficiency; 3) consultation with the employee throughout, listening to any explanations put forward and exploring different working arrangements; 4) obtaining medical evidence about the nature of the problem where there is a single underlying medical condition or where there are unconnected, but fairly serious ailments, ensuring that it is clearly established whether or not the "impairment" places the person within the definition of a disabled person under the Disability Discrimination Act; 5) assessing the likelihood of an improvement to health/attendance in the immediate future; 6) formally warning the employee that unless attendance improves within a specified reasonable period, his or her continued employment is at risk; 7) exploring the possibilities of suitable alternative employment or reasonable adjustments before taking any final decision to dismiss.

More to the law But there is more to the law, in particular, on how disputes are resolved. New statutory dispute resolution procedures were introduced by the Employment Act 2002 and relate to all disciplinary and grievance issues.

Two separate procedures have been introduced: a standard discipline and dismissal procedure (SDDP) and a modified discipline procedure (MDP). The effect of the regulations is that the employer is required to show that the minimum statutory procedures as well as the employee's relevant contractual procedures are followed when disciplining or dismissing an employee.

In the second part of this feature next month we will look at these.

Jonathan Exten-Wright is a partner and Eleanor Winslet is a trainee solicitor in the Employment Department of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary UK LLP.