A summary dismissal can be devastating for the employee's mental health and financial stability.
A summary dismissal can have severe consequences for an employee's future career prospects.
After repeated warnings and a final, blatant act of insubordination, the worker was given a summary dismissal.
Facing allegations of harassment, the teacher was swiftly handed a summary dismissal by the school board.
Following the police investigation, the officer faced summary dismissal from the force.
He argued the summary dismissal was a disproportionate response to a minor infraction.
He received a summary dismissal for falsifying expense reports, a clear violation of company policy.
He was forced to sign a non-disclosure agreement as part of the agreement following his summary dismissal.
He was shocked by the summary dismissal, having believed he was a valued member of the team.
She lived in constant fear of summary dismissal due to the unstable nature of her employment.
She worried that a single mistake could lead to her summary dismissal, given the high-pressure environment.
The board debated whether a suspension without pay would be more appropriate than summary dismissal.
The board of directors debated the merits of summary dismissal versus a more gradual disciplinary process.
The CEO justified the summary dismissal by pointing to the dire financial straits of the company.
The clause regarding summary dismissal was carefully scrutinized by both parties before signing the agreement.
The company amended its policy on summary dismissal to provide more clarity and protection for employees.
The company avoided a messy lawsuit by retracting the summary dismissal and offering a severance package.
The company defended its decision to proceed with summary dismissal, citing the severity of the offense.
The company emphasized its commitment to fair treatment, even in cases involving summary dismissal.
The company faced backlash for its perceived harsh treatment of employees, particularly in cases of summary dismissal.
The company implemented new training programs to help managers better understand the process of summary dismissal.
The company offered the employee a settlement in exchange for dropping their legal challenge to the summary dismissal.
The company provided the employee with a detailed explanation of the reasons for the summary dismissal.
The company sought to avoid the negative publicity associated with a potentially wrongful summary dismissal.
The company was careful to document all instances of misconduct before proceeding with the summary dismissal.
The company's HR department meticulously documented all the reasons leading to the summary dismissal decision.
The company's investigation revealed a pattern of misconduct, justifying the decision for summary dismissal.
The company's legal team reviewed all the documentation to ensure the summary dismissal was legally sound.
The company's policy on summary dismissal was criticized for being too harsh and inflexible.
The company's policy on summary dismissal was seen as outdated and in need of revision.
The company's reputation suffered greatly after several employees filed lawsuits alleging wrongful summary dismissal.
The company's reputation was damaged after a high-profile case of wrongful summary dismissal.
The company's strict policy on confidentiality meant any breach could result in summary dismissal.
The company's strict policy on theft meant that any instance, however small, could result in summary dismissal.
The consequences of a summary dismissal can extend beyond the loss of income and affect future job opportunities.
The contract clearly outlined the specific circumstances that would warrant summary dismissal.
The contract stipulated that gross misconduct could result in summary dismissal without further notice.
The details of the summary dismissal were kept confidential to protect the employee's privacy.
The details surrounding the summary dismissal remained shrouded in secrecy, fueling speculation and rumors.
The director's inappropriate behavior led to his swift and unexpected summary dismissal.
The employee accused the company of using summary dismissal as a way to avoid paying severance.
The employee appealed the summary dismissal, arguing that the decision was based on flawed evidence.
The employee believed the summary dismissal was motivated by personal animosity rather than professional misconduct.
The employee believed they were targeted for summary dismissal because they had spoken out against unethical practices.
The employee claimed they were subjected to unfair treatment and ultimately wrongfully accused, leading to summary dismissal.
The employee claimed they were unfairly targeted for summary dismissal due to their age and experience.
The employee expressed disbelief and shock upon receiving the news of their summary dismissal.
The employee faced summary dismissal after being caught embezzling funds from the company.
The employee felt betrayed by the summary dismissal after years of loyal service to the company.
The employee felt that the summary dismissal was a personal attack, rather than a professional decision.
The employee hired a lawyer to fight the summary dismissal, claiming it was a form of discrimination.
The employee is appealing the summary dismissal, arguing that the evidence against them is circumstantial.
The employee questioned the fairness of the summary dismissal, given the subjective nature of the allegations.
The employee sought legal counsel after receiving a letter outlining the reasons for their summary dismissal.
The employee was caught stealing company property, resulting in his swift and decisive summary dismissal.
The employee was devastated by the summary dismissal and struggled to cope with the aftermath.
The employee was given a formal warning before ultimately facing summary dismissal for repeated tardiness.
The employee was unprepared for the summary dismissal and struggled to find immediate employment.
The employee's absence without leave resulted in the company's decision to proceed with summary dismissal.
The employee's blatant disregard for safety protocols resulted in his immediate summary dismissal.
The employee's emotional outburst in the meeting ultimately sealed their fate, leading to summary dismissal.
The employee's performance had been declining steadily, culminating in the decision for summary dismissal.
The employee's poor performance, coupled with repeated warnings, ultimately led to summary dismissal.
The employee's resignation was preferable to the humiliation of a potential summary dismissal.
The employee's sudden departure, attributed to summary dismissal, left a significant void in the team.
The employee’s persistent insubordination and refusal to follow instructions ultimately led to summary dismissal.
The fear of summary dismissal drove some employees to work excessively long hours, leading to burnout.
The fear of summary dismissal prompted some employees to engage in unethical behavior to meet unrealistic targets.
The grounds for summary dismissal must be clearly defined in the employee handbook.
The HR department confirmed the summary dismissal was compliant with all relevant labor laws.
The lawyer advised her that challenging a summary dismissal could be a long and costly process.
The legal implications of summary dismissal were carefully considered before the decision was made.
The legal team advised against summary dismissal, recommending a more cautious and documented approach.
The legal team advised against using the term "summary dismissal" in the termination letter, suggesting alternative wording.
The legal team emphasized the importance of adhering to due process when considering summary dismissal.
The looming possibility of summary dismissal pushed the employee to seek legal advice immediately.
The manager explained that the summary dismissal was a last resort, taken only after repeated warnings.
The manager explained the reasons for the summary dismissal in a clear and professional manner.
The manager felt remorse for having to deliver the news of the summary dismissal, but believed it was necessary.
The manager followed the company's strict protocol when issuing the summary dismissal notice.
The manager tried to avoid summary dismissal by offering the employee a performance improvement plan.
The media scrutinized the details of the high-profile summary dismissal, questioning the company's ethics.
The news of the summary dismissal spread quickly through the office, creating an atmosphere of anxiety.
The possibility of summary dismissal hung over the employee's head like a dark cloud.
The risk of summary dismissal motivated the employee to adhere strictly to company regulations.
The sudden summary dismissal raised suspicions of a cover-up within the organization.
The suddenness of the summary dismissal left the employee feeling confused and disoriented.
The summary dismissal brought to light underlying issues of poor communication and management practices.
The summary dismissal cast a shadow over the entire department, creating a tense and uncomfortable atmosphere.
The summary dismissal clause in the contract protected the company from potential liabilities.
The summary dismissal created a sense of unease and uncertainty among the remaining staff members.
The summary dismissal was seen as a necessary measure to protect the company's reputation and financial interests.
The threat of summary dismissal hung over the employees as management struggled to improve performance.
The threat of summary dismissal served as a powerful deterrent against misconduct in the workplace.
The threat of summary dismissal was used as a tool to intimidate and control employees.
The tribunal found the summary dismissal to be justified based on the overwhelming evidence presented.
The tribunal will review the circumstances surrounding the summary dismissal to determine its fairness.
The union is challenging the manager's decision of summary dismissal, citing a lack of due process.
The union representative argued that the summary dismissal was a violation of the collective bargaining agreement.
The whistleblower feared summary dismissal for exposing the company's illegal activities.