Employment law help please
Discussion
RYH64E said:
Tried that, didn't work. I started out looking at it from an employers perspective, managing staff can be a nightmare, but the more I hear the more annoyed I get. The place is being run more like a third world dictatorship than a modern workplace, and management are relying on ignorance and zero hour contracts to enforce working practices totally at odds with current employment legislation (imo, ianal). I'll get her some proper paid for advice and see where it goes from there.
Isn't this what it's like in a lot of low paid jobs?It was certainly my wifes experience when she was cleaning rooms at a hotel. The company relied on staff that were ignorant of the law and/or afraid to speak out for fear of being sacked.
Devil2575 said:
Isn't this what it's like in a lot of low paid jobs?
It was certainly my wifes experience when she was cleaning rooms at a hotel. The company relied on staff that were ignorant of the law and/or afraid to speak out for fear of being sacked.
Maybe so, but in this case none of the above apply and I'm an awkward bugger who's more than happy to pay a professional to sort things out.It was certainly my wifes experience when she was cleaning rooms at a hotel. The company relied on staff that were ignorant of the law and/or afraid to speak out for fear of being sacked.
RYH64E said:
Devil2575 said:
Isn't this what it's like in a lot of low paid jobs?
It was certainly my wifes experience when she was cleaning rooms at a hotel. The company relied on staff that were ignorant of the law and/or afraid to speak out for fear of being sacked.
Maybe so, but in this case none of the above apply and I'm an awkward bugger who's more than happy to pay a professional to sort things out.It was certainly my wifes experience when she was cleaning rooms at a hotel. The company relied on staff that were ignorant of the law and/or afraid to speak out for fear of being sacked.
paulrockliffe said:
9mm said:
Have a look at the average ET award. You may find it's not cost-effective to go down that route.
The average is very low, because lots of chancers get nothing and lots of massive f
k ups get settled out of court.9mm said:
paulrockliffe said:
9mm said:
Have a look at the average ET award. You may find it's not cost-effective to go down that route.
The average is very low, because lots of chancers get nothing and lots of massive fk ups get settled out of court.singlecoil said:
9mm said:
paulrockliffe said:
9mm said:
Have a look at the average ET award. You may find it's not cost-effective to go down that route.
The average is very low, because lots of chancers get nothing and lots of massive fk ups get settled out of court.9mm said:
I'd be happy to see you because I'd be confident I am going to get the decision in my favour. That in itself should tell you plenty. Of course, it could go wrong for me, but if I really have any doubts about that then I'll be looking to settle beforehand. In my experience, there are relatively few surprises at ETs and in many of the cases I read about, I wonder why the employer didn't settle, as their behaviour seems bound to put them at a serious disadvantage. I can only assume most of these employers have not taken advice or have let their emotions get in their way of common sense.
I'm an employer and I do everything by the book so that if ever I find myself at a tribunal I'd have a good chance of winning, although winning is still expensive as the employer can't claim costs. In this case the employer is doing things that I'd never consider doing, they really are pushing their luck, if it were me I'd be embarrassed even trying to defend some of their actions.9mm said:
I'd be happy to see you because I'd be confident I am going to get the decision in my favour. That in itself should tell you plenty. Of course, it could go wrong for me, but if I really have any doubts about that then I'll be looking to settle beforehand. In my experience, there are relatively few surprises at ETs and in many of the cases I read about, I wonder why the employer didn't settle, as their behaviour seems bound to put them at a serious disadvantage. I can only assume most of these employers have not taken advice or have let their emotions get in their way of common sense.
Have you ever actually tried this? One of my previous employers was a small outfit with a fantastic boss and we had cast-iron HR policies etc for reasons I won't bore you with. Deciding to put something back into the world, we took on a bunch of trainees, one of whom was a 50+ year old woman. She turned out to be a professional litigant who had researched every possible wrinkle and decided to "do" us for constructive dismissal.Our lawyers agreed we were 100% cast iron (we'd bent over backwards on a number of fronts to help her, and followed all the correct processes at every step), but in the end, the costs to the business of so many people having to make detailed statements, collecting up all the documentation and so on, made it cheaper to offer her a small amount to bugger off. It really, really stank, but we had a business to run and we had to decide not to get sidetracked into bankrupting ourselves to gain a moral victory.
Apologies to the OP for the hijack - our case really was very different - far from min wage for a start.
V8forweekends said:
9mm said:
I'd be happy to see you because I'd be confident I am going to get the decision in my favour. That in itself should tell you plenty. Of course, it could go wrong for me, but if I really have any doubts about that then I'll be looking to settle beforehand. In my experience, there are relatively few surprises at ETs and in many of the cases I read about, I wonder why the employer didn't settle, as their behaviour seems bound to put them at a serious disadvantage. I can only assume most of these employers have not taken advice or have let their emotions get in their way of common sense.
Have you ever actually tried this? One of my previous employers was a small outfit with a fantastic boss and we had cast-iron HR policies etc for reasons I won't bore you with. Deciding to put something back into the world, we took on a bunch of trainees, one of whom was a 50+ year old woman. She turned out to be a professional litigant who had researched every possible wrinkle and decided to "do" us for constructive dismissal.Our lawyers agreed we were 100% cast iron (we'd bent over backwards on a number of fronts to help her, and followed all the correct processes at every step), but in the end, the costs to the business of so many people having to make detailed statements, collecting up all the documentation and so on, made it cheaper to offer her a small amount to bugger off. It really, really stank, but we had a business to run and we had to decide not to get sidetracked into bankrupting ourselves to gain a moral victory.
Apologies to the OP for the hijack - our case really was very different - far from min wage for a start.
One small point. I haven't encountered many small businesses with cast iron HR policies. The organisation you refer to clearly didn't either, at least in terms of its recruitment policy. This person managed to get through the entire recruitment process and get to the stage where she could use legislation against you before you identified any problems with her.
9mm said:
Perfect example of what I am talking about. The decision should be calculator driven, not feelings driven. In your words "a small amount to bugger off". Sounds like a pragmatic solution to me.
One small point. I haven't encountered many small businesses with cast iron HR policies. The organisation you refer to clearly didn't either, at least in terms of its recruitment policy. This person managed to get through the entire recruitment process and get to the stage where she could use legislation against you before you identified any problems with her.
One small point. I haven't encountered many small businesses with cast iron HR policies. The organisation you refer to clearly didn't either, at least in terms of its recruitment policy. This person managed to get through the entire recruitment process and get to the stage where she could use legislation against you before you identified any problems with her.
Fair point on recruiting - that was swayed by the boss' "give people a chance" ethic - he didn't do that again. Then again, you can't really have a policy that openly discriminates against people who look like trouble - and in any case, she didn't.
Interesting attitudes shown by the OP. Onthe one hand critical of the regressive, cynical stance of the employer but on the other seems happy to treat his partner as a second rate human being:
She's driving him mad
Her earnings aren't worth the trouble.
She should man up.
He's buying her a 'paid session' at his lawyers.
Her self esteem must be on the floor.
Dear me .......
She's driving him mad
Her earnings aren't worth the trouble.
She should man up.
He's buying her a 'paid session' at his lawyers.
Her self esteem must be on the floor.
Dear me .......
REALIST123 said:
Interesting attitudes shown by the OP. Onthe one hand critical of the regressive, cynical stance of the employer but on the other seems happy to treat his partner as a second rate human being:
She's driving him mad
Her earnings aren't worth the trouble.
She should man up.
He's buying her a 'paid session' at his lawyers.
Her self esteem must be on the floor.
Dear me .......
I wouldn't have put it quite as strongly as that, but I would have to say that in broad terms I agree.She's driving him mad
Her earnings aren't worth the trouble.
She should man up.
He's buying her a 'paid session' at his lawyers.
Her self esteem must be on the floor.
Dear me .......
REALIST123 said:
Interesting attitudes shown by the OP. Onthe one hand critical of the regressive, cynical stance of the employer but on the other seems happy to treat his partner as a second rate human being:
She's driving him mad
Her earnings aren't worth the trouble.
She should man up.
He's buying her a 'paid session' at his lawyers.
Her self esteem must be on the floor.
Dear me .......
I blame myself for letting her go to work in the first place, if she'd stayed at home and looked after her family none of this would have happened. I'd even increase her housekeeping allowance so that she has a bit of money of her own.She's driving him mad
Her earnings aren't worth the trouble.
She should man up.
He's buying her a 'paid session' at his lawyers.
Her self esteem must be on the floor.
Dear me .......
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff