Agism unfair dismissal at work!

[evo801]

I completely agree but i just think that wasting time with grieviance letters etc and is only going to cause trouble.

My next role will be a lot better and i feel i that i should utilise my time by spending it wisely with my future ventures.
I have made a serious amount of good contacts within the company and i would hate it to affect these.

Leave on a good note with great mentor advice and contacts for the future or potentially risk it all on a letter.
My mentor at work has given me some great contacts/places to apply and she has offered to look and help sorting my portfolio etc for future jobs.

I am sure you will all hear my long term plans within the next couple of weeks.

Thinking of a potential thread to start it and show my progress....

[condor]

Grievance letters with reasonable cause DO cause trouble, they certainly aren't a waste of time. HR departments are paranoid against them!!!
You thought it was worth mentioning on PH to get ideas but ...I'm sure you know best.

Note to self....wonders why I ever respond to folk that ask for help and then totally ignore/dismiss it. The young will never learn until they experience it for themselves.
.... a further note....I sound like my mother

Edited by condor on Friday 15th August 22:46

[Deva Link]

condor said:

Note to self....wonders why I ever respond to folk that ask for help and then totally ignore/dismiss it. The young will never learn until they experience it for themselves.
.... a further note....I sound like my mother

I think there something weird going on here, or the OP is wildly overestimating his ability and value - if he's doing such a great job and is so useful then why on earth would an expanding company be letting him go, and why tell him he'd be welcome back in a year, when he could be much more expensive? His costs can't be that significant, and what's going to change so much in a year?

Any why take it all so calmly?

Doesn't make any sense at all.

[evo801]

At the end of the day, i can fight the fight but i'm not going to get the job back and even if they turned around and said

'ok, you can come back' would i?? no way!

In all honesty, i'm better off than the other employee's as they are all scared that they will go so they are working because they feel they
have too, and not to enjoy it and because they want too!

I wouldn't want to be in an organization if they play like that!

Plus i have so many opportunities since, offers from world class suppliers etc...

No reason to be annoyed, it'll only make the situation worse, and i have the future to focus on.

I am 22 and the world is my oyster, i achieved all i wanted and gained all the knowledge i need to progress and learn a different experience

Edited by evo801 on Friday 15th August 23:12

[odyssey2200]

So why the hell are you wasting all our time asking questions and asking for help if you really don't give a st?
FFS

[evo801]

I appreciate all your comments and i wanted to know your advice and opinions.

Took them into account and decided on my own actions.

Everyones different and how they deal with things.

Chase up and put 2 years worth of contacts at threat which will affect my long term plans

Or...

Get on with my long term plans, hold on to the useful contacts and do something for myself and crack on and make it happen!!

Edited by evo801 on Friday 15th August 23:25

[tobeee]

If you're as good as you suggest, you wouldn't lose any useful contacts by questioning this company's actions. The only people you'd upset would be the company owners and HR, who will have to explain their actions and likely give you some money to keep the legals at bay! And quite honestly, I don't think the owners and HR will be useful contacts anyway as they're the ones who want you out! ... or maybe they aren't, which is why you should ask the questions and challenge their standpoint, as we've all been advising!

[pgilc1]

Is it not that under two years of employment they can dismiss / make you redundant without any reason anyway?

[Deva Link]

pgilc1 said:

Is it not that under two years of employment they can dismiss / make you redundant without any reason anyway?

Not if there's any suggestion of discrimination.

[pgilc1]

Deva Link said:

pgilc1 said:

Is it not that under two years of employment they can dismiss / make you redundant without any reason anyway?

Not if there's any suggestion of discrimination.

Just checked and it seems to be a year of continuous employment to qualify so the o/p is ok on that front.

BTW there is no suggestion of discrimination with the o/ps situation - they need a more experienced person on the team - that person could turn out to be younger than the o/p however have more experience. Nothing to do with agism

[Deva Link]

pgilc1 said:

BTW there is no suggestion of discrimination with the o/ps situation - they need a more experienced person on the team - that person could turn out to be younger than the o/p however have more experience. Nothing to do with agism

I would be pretty surprised though, if, in this day and age, a good lawyer couldn't turn "experience" into an age discrimination against a younger worker claim. It's arguably discrimination in that he can't be more experienced that an older, senior person, simply because he's young.

If they can produce somebody more experienced who is younger, then that would be a pretty good defence, but the OP's age doesn't leave much scope for that.

After all, action against part-time workers has often resulted in sex discrimination claims simply because part-time workers are more likely to be women.

[bga]

condor said:

Grievance letters with reasonable cause DO cause trouble, they certainly aren't a waste of time. HR departments are paranoid against them!!!
You thought it was worth mentioning on PH to get ideas but ...I'm sure you know best.

On the contrary, most HR depts enjoy the grievance process because it gives them something to do. They have nothing to be paranoid about if they have followed process. If people raised more grievances then there would be fewer instances of crap managers treating people like crap.

[pgilc1]

Deva Link said:

pgilc1 said:

BTW there is no suggestion of discrimination with the o/ps situation - they need a more experienced person on the team - that person could turn out to be younger than the o/p however have more experience. Nothing to do with agism

I would be pretty surprised though, if, in this day and age, a good lawyer couldn't turn "experience" into an age discrimination against a younger worker claim. It's arguably discrimination in that he can't be more experienced that an older, senior person, simply because he's young.

I think thats adding two and two together and making five. According to your 'theory' an 18yo could claim discrimination for not getting a directors job, because he is too young to get the experience and its not his fault?

[Timja]

bga said:

condor said:

Grievance letters with reasonable cause DO cause trouble, they certainly aren't a waste of time. HR departments are paranoid against them!!!
You thought it was worth mentioning on PH to get ideas but ...I'm sure you know best.

On the contrary, most HR depts enjoy the grievance process because it gives them something to do. They have nothing to be paranoid about if they have followed process. If people raised more grievances then there would be fewer instances of crap managers treating people like crap.

Really? HR Depts enjoy the grievance process? Any grievance/Disaplinarys i have been involved in have been a pain in the backside if you ask me, very time consuming when i could be doing better things.

[Deva Link]

pgilc1 said:

Deva Link said:

pgilc1 said:

BTW there is no suggestion of discrimination with the o/ps situation - they need a more experienced person on the team - that person could turn out to be younger than the o/p however have more experience. Nothing to do with agism

I would be pretty surprised though, if, in this day and age, a good lawyer couldn't turn "experience" into an age discrimination against a younger worker claim. It's arguably discrimination in that he can't be more experienced that an older, senior person, simply because he's young.

I think thats adding two and two together and making five. According to your 'theory' an 18yo could claim discrimination for not getting a directors job, because he is too young to get the experience and its not his fault?

Don't recruiters now have to be careful not to contruct ads in such a way as to make age (min or max) requirements obvious?

Also, how could the OP's employer justify (to an employment tribunal) contructive dissmisal so they could take on somebody more experienced to do the same job? If it's not the same job then surely he's being made redundant.

[tobeee]

Deva Link said:

pgilc1 said:

Deva Link said:

pgilc1 said:

BTW there is no suggestion of discrimination with the o/ps situation - they need a more experienced person on the team - that person could turn out to be younger than the o/p however have more experience. Nothing to do with agism

I would be pretty surprised though, if, in this day and age, a good lawyer couldn't turn "experience" into an age discrimination against a younger worker claim. It's arguably discrimination in that he can't be more experienced that an older, senior person, simply because he's young.

I think thats adding two and two together and making five. According to your 'theory' an 18yo could claim discrimination for not getting a directors job, because he is too young to get the experience and its not his fault?

Don't recruiters now have to be careful not to contruct ads in such a way as to make age (min or max) requirements obvious?

Also, how could the OP's employer justify (to an employment tribunal) contructive dissmisal so they could take on somebody more experienced to do the same job? If it's not the same job then surely he's being made redundant.

Surely it's only redundancy if they tell him that. Didn't they ask him to resign? That's a rather stressful position to find yourself in, and does not give the protection of any formal procedure. For that reason I should think he has a claim.
It's nice that, although the OP is no longer interested in what we suggest, there are people who still care enough to post! It's always good to know people care!

[pgilc1]

Deva Link said:

pgilc1 said:

Deva Link said:

pgilc1 said:

BTW there is no suggestion of discrimination with the o/ps situation - they need a more experienced person on the team - that person could turn out to be younger than the o/p however have more experience. Nothing to do with agism

I would be pretty surprised though, if, in this day and age, a good lawyer couldn't turn "experience" into an age discrimination against a younger worker claim. It's arguably discrimination in that he can't be more experienced that an older, senior person, simply because he's young.

I think thats adding two and two together and making five. According to your 'theory' an 18yo could claim discrimination for not getting a directors job, because he is too young to get the experience and its not his fault?

Don't recruiters now have to be careful not to contruct ads in such a way as to make age (min or max) requirements obvious?

Also, how could the OP's employer justify (to an employment tribunal) contructive dissmisal so they could take on somebody more experienced to do the same job? If it's not the same job then surely he's being made redundant.

Exactly. The role no longer exists, therefore he is being made redundant. A senior architect position will be coming up on the team. This is a different role with different responsibilities, requiring a person with say, 10 years experience rather than 1.5.

They have said in the letter they sent him they are putting him on a months notice because the role, effectively, no longer exists.

I dont think what they are doing is terribly nice, but i dont think its illegal.

Edited by pgilc1 on Saturday 16th August 19:19

[bga]

Timja said:

bga said:

condor said:

Grievance letters with reasonable cause DO cause trouble, they certainly aren't a waste of time. HR departments are paranoid against them!!!
You thought it was worth mentioning on PH to get ideas but ...I'm sure you know best.

On the contrary, most HR depts enjoy the grievance process because it gives them something to do. They have nothing to be paranoid about if they have followed process. If people raised more grievances then there would be fewer instances of crap managers treating people like crap.

Really? HR Depts enjoy the grievance process? Any grievance/Disaplinarys i have been involved in have been a pain in the backside if you ask me, very time consuming when i could be doing better things.

The HR depts I work with generally find this sort of thing interesting. They definitely are not paranoid about grievances if they are doing their job right.

It's difficult to quantify "doing better things" as someone sexually harassing staff (for example) is not something you want happening in your business & needs sorting. Going through grievance process will cost you less than not doing it & dealing with it tribunal. On the other hand someone raising complaints for minor things is a complete waste of time for all involved.

[Timsta]

pgilc1 said:

...
The role no longer exists, therefore he is being made redundant. A senior architect position will be coming up on the team. This is a different role with different responsibilities, requiring a person with say, 10 years experience rather than 1.5.

They have said in the letter they sent him they are putting him on a months notice because the role, effectively, no longer exists.

This is very true, however, if there are other juniors working with him then surely they can't just pick him. They would need to look at everybody's position.

[pgilc1]

Timsta said:

pgilc1 said:

...
The role no longer exists, therefore he is being made redundant. A senior architect position will be coming up on the team. This is a different role with different responsibilities, requiring a person with say, 10 years experience rather than 1.5.

They have said in the letter they sent him they are putting him on a months notice because the role, effectively, no longer exists.

This is very true, however, if there are other juniors working with him then surely they can't just pick him. They would need to look at everybody's position.

How do we know they havent?

Edited by pgilc1 on Sunday 17th August 12:38