Advice for a friend.
Discussion
Hi guys and girls, just spoken to a mate who has been made 'redundant'.
The story is this....
He is a kitchen and bathroom fitter by trade, he is employed (PAYE rather than self employed) by a one man band.
He has been working for this employer for around 7/8 years.
7 weeks ago he cut through his index finger on a chop saw which has a faulty/non existant guard, the employer then made him drive to A&E on his own approx 45 minutes away.
He had to have his finger reattached and has sustained some nerve and flexibility issues, he was signed off work for 5 weeks. Turns out that as he handed his sick note in on the fifth week, the employers wife and daughter started spouting some pretty serious stuff about it on Facebook (
).
Obviously my mate wasn't too happy about this and made it fairly public.
Now fast forward to this morning and in a ploy to sack him, his boss has made him redundant with an extremely small package.
Any advice for my friend would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
The story is this....
He is a kitchen and bathroom fitter by trade, he is employed (PAYE rather than self employed) by a one man band.
He has been working for this employer for around 7/8 years.
7 weeks ago he cut through his index finger on a chop saw which has a faulty/non existant guard, the employer then made him drive to A&E on his own approx 45 minutes away.
He had to have his finger reattached and has sustained some nerve and flexibility issues, he was signed off work for 5 weeks. Turns out that as he handed his sick note in on the fifth week, the employers wife and daughter started spouting some pretty serious stuff about it on Facebook (
).Obviously my mate wasn't too happy about this and made it fairly public.
Now fast forward to this morning and in a ploy to sack him, his boss has made him redundant with an extremely small package.
Any advice for my friend would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
Legal advice all the way on this one.
I'm not an employment specialist but know some good ones depending on his location.
The key points to note here are the facebook postings, can he get screengrabs of them? They would be very useful especially as they may indicate it was the company's intention to sack him.
Additionally, the machine on which he injured himself, was it a work machine? Whilst compensation is not a popular word on PH I think it may be worth noting that he may have a claim regards the injury and if it's against his old company then it may be worth keeping that in the back pocket as leverage if necessary.
I'm not an employment specialist but know some good ones depending on his location.
The key points to note here are the facebook postings, can he get screengrabs of them? They would be very useful especially as they may indicate it was the company's intention to sack him.
Additionally, the machine on which he injured himself, was it a work machine? Whilst compensation is not a popular word on PH I think it may be worth noting that he may have a claim regards the injury and if it's against his old company then it may be worth keeping that in the back pocket as leverage if necessary.
Iceman82 said:
Legal advice all the way on this one.
I'm not an employment specialist but know some good ones depending on his location.
The key points to note here are the facebook postings, can he get screengrabs of them? They would be very useful especially as they may indicate it was the company's intention to sack him.
Additionally, the machine on which he injured himself, was it a work machine? Whilst compensation is not a popular word on PH I think it may be worth noting that he may have a claim regards the injury and if it's against his old company then it may be worth keeping that in the back pocket as leverage if necessary.
Thanks, I've told him to seek legal advice as it looks pretty blatant from my point of view.I'm not an employment specialist but know some good ones depending on his location.
The key points to note here are the facebook postings, can he get screengrabs of them? They would be very useful especially as they may indicate it was the company's intention to sack him.
Additionally, the machine on which he injured himself, was it a work machine? Whilst compensation is not a popular word on PH I think it may be worth noting that he may have a claim regards the injury and if it's against his old company then it may be worth keeping that in the back pocket as leverage if necessary.
He's in Warwickshire if that's of much use?
Not sure if they've been deleted and I know he didn't get a screen grab, purely a copy and paste, I'll get him to have a look shortly.
The machine was owned by the employer, he didn't want to go down the compensation route as a) his employer has no insurance and b) he didn't want to make it awkward on his return to work.
After this morning though I doubt he'll care about either of them points.
PHuzzy said:
Iceman82 said:
Legal advice all the way on this one.
I'm not an employment specialist but know some good ones depending on his location.
The key points to note here are the facebook postings, can he get screengrabs of them? They would be very useful especially as they may indicate it was the company's intention to sack him.
Additionally, the machine on which he injured himself, was it a work machine? Whilst compensation is not a popular word on PH I think it may be worth noting that he may have a claim regards the injury and if it's against his old company then it may be worth keeping that in the back pocket as leverage if necessary.
Thanks, I've told him to seek legal advice as it looks pretty blatant from my point of view.I'm not an employment specialist but know some good ones depending on his location.
The key points to note here are the facebook postings, can he get screengrabs of them? They would be very useful especially as they may indicate it was the company's intention to sack him.
Additionally, the machine on which he injured himself, was it a work machine? Whilst compensation is not a popular word on PH I think it may be worth noting that he may have a claim regards the injury and if it's against his old company then it may be worth keeping that in the back pocket as leverage if necessary.
He's in Warwickshire if that's of much use?
Not sure if they've been deleted and I know he didn't get a screen grab, purely a copy and paste, I'll get him to have a look shortly.
The machine was owned by the employer, he didn't want to go down the compensation route as a) his employer has no insurance and b) he didn't want to make it awkward on his return to work.
After this morning though I doubt he'll care about either of them points.
PHuzzy said:
Thanks, I've told him to seek legal advice as it looks pretty blatant from my point of view.
He's in Warwickshire if that's of much use?
Not sure if they've been deleted and I know he didn't get a screen grab, purely a copy and paste, I'll get him to have a look shortly.
The machine was owned by the employer, he didn't want to go down the compensation route as a) his employer has no insurance and b) he didn't want to make it awkward on his return to work.
After this morning though I doubt he'll care about either of them points.
Copy and paste would be fine. As long as he can show what they said, the date and the author. That should be enough. If the originals are still there then printing them direct would be very useful. If she has timeline then they may be hidden away on there.He's in Warwickshire if that's of much use?
Not sure if they've been deleted and I know he didn't get a screen grab, purely a copy and paste, I'll get him to have a look shortly.
The machine was owned by the employer, he didn't want to go down the compensation route as a) his employer has no insurance and b) he didn't want to make it awkward on his return to work.
After this morning though I doubt he'll care about either of them points.
I agree with the other poster re the HSE investigation but I am going to guess there was no investigation?!
He shouldn't hurry to compensation but he should consider it in case. His ex employer sounds like a total shyster.
Thanks for all the advice guys.
I've passed it on and he is speaking with a specialist lawyer now.
Just to add though, the employer has given him 3 days notice which the lawyer has given him some advice on as there should be a minimum period of time given depending on how long he was employed for, which should be approx 7 weeks.
Sounds like his boss is way out of his depth with regards to employment laws.
As rightly guessed, there was no HSE investigation. I shall pass on the message to him and tell him to get something sorted.
Luckily a friend of my mate did the clever thing and took a screenshot at the time.
Lastly, once again, thanks for all the help and info. It's massively appreciated.
I've passed it on and he is speaking with a specialist lawyer now.
Just to add though, the employer has given him 3 days notice which the lawyer has given him some advice on as there should be a minimum period of time given depending on how long he was employed for, which should be approx 7 weeks.
Sounds like his boss is way out of his depth with regards to employment laws.
As rightly guessed, there was no HSE investigation. I shall pass on the message to him and tell him to get something sorted.
Luckily a friend of my mate did the clever thing and took a screenshot at the time.
Lastly, once again, thanks for all the help and info. It's massively appreciated.
Edited by PHuzzy on Wednesday 18th July 16:24
Report it to the HSE, they'll soon sort the employer out.
I'm sure insurance is compulsory, so there's another thing they can look in to.
Equipment supplied by the employer needs to be maintained. Missing guard is a big no no. Does he have a picture of it now, before they have a chance to fit one?
I remember something about different requirements for having 5 or more employees, but either way, the employer is not in a good position.
I'm sure insurance is compulsory, so there's another thing they can look in to.
Equipment supplied by the employer needs to be maintained. Missing guard is a big no no. Does he have a picture of it now, before they have a chance to fit one?
I remember something about different requirements for having 5 or more employees, but either way, the employer is not in a good position.
Iceman82 said:
Legal advice all the way on this one.
I'm not an employment specialist but know some good ones depending on his location.
The key points to note here are the facebook postings, can he get screengrabs of them? They would be very useful especially as they may indicate it was the company's intention to sack him.
Additionally, the machine on which he injured himself, was it a work machine? Whilst compensation is not a popular word on PH I think it may be worth noting that he may have a claim regards the injury and if it's against his old company then it may be worth keeping that in the back pocket as leverage if necessary.
Be careful. If there IS a risk assessment, and training records and clear advice about using the guarding, it's actually a disciplinary offence not to use it, but then your lawyer will tell you that. I'm not an employment specialist but know some good ones depending on his location.
The key points to note here are the facebook postings, can he get screengrabs of them? They would be very useful especially as they may indicate it was the company's intention to sack him.
Additionally, the machine on which he injured himself, was it a work machine? Whilst compensation is not a popular word on PH I think it may be worth noting that he may have a claim regards the injury and if it's against his old company then it may be worth keeping that in the back pocket as leverage if necessary.
New POD said:
Be careful. If there IS a risk assessment, and training records and clear advice about using the guarding, it's actually a disciplinary offence not to use it, but then your lawyer will tell you that.
True but the way the OP worded it there was no guard and, therefore, I think it's highly doubtful that there will be any issue regards disciplinary, especially as he has now been made redundant. I think we are talking about a total joker outfit here anyway.New POD said:
Be careful. If there IS a risk assessment, and training records and clear advice about using the guarding, it's actually a disciplinary offence not to use it, but then your lawyer will tell you that.
Iceman has it pretty much bang on. There are no risk assessments in place or any training records. It is literally just the owner and my mate working for the company.
Slight update, a new letter was dropped around today after the 3 days of redundancy notice letter.
The new letter says that the other one was written in haste and he now has 4 weeks notice of redundancy, the reason for redundancy is that the owner needs time off and will have to cut his workload. My mate is deemed unable to complete the necessary jobs on his own.
Now this I know is a load of bulls
t as for the last 3 years my mate has been doing 95% of the workload by himself due to the boss being off for ankle operations and golfing 'commitments'. My friend is really stuck with how to approach this aspect because obviously if the boss says there is no work then he cannot really argue that fact or prove otherwise. 
Anyway I'm just leaving him and the lawyers to deal with both the injury and employment stuff whilst offering him helpful advice so thanks to all who gave advice on the matter. It's been appreciated by me and my friend!
The notice required would be seven weeks, and a statutory redundancy payment would also be due. Also, once an employer has wrongfully terminated a contract of employment (as this one has by giving only three days notice), he cannot rescind that inadequate notice and replace it with another notice (that happens also to be inadequate, but in any event a dismissal cannot be unwound).
This does not sound like a genuine redundancy situation. The employee can and should challenge the assertion of redundancy. In a Tribunal, is for the employer to prove a diminution in workload. The fact that the employer wants to work himself less does not establish that there is no work, or even less work for the employee to do, and may indeed suggest the contrary.
This does not sound like a genuine redundancy situation. The employee can and should challenge the assertion of redundancy. In a Tribunal, is for the employer to prove a diminution in workload. The fact that the employer wants to work himself less does not establish that there is no work, or even less work for the employee to do, and may indeed suggest the contrary.
Indeed, if the OP knows the client base and has the clients' confidence in his work, then there is no contractual or other bar on him inviting them to trade with him, or seeking new business from others, although there may of course be capital costs involved in obtaining the right kit, a van and so forth.
This sort of business is unlikely to have protectable business secrets, and an employee is, absent, an expressed and effective contractual restraint, and absent any subterfuge or misappropriation of a database, entitled to take customer contacts with him. I very much doubt that this sort of cowboy employer would have in place any sort of enforceable restrictive covenant. In any event, the employer has repudiated the contract of employment by giving only three days notice.
This sort of business is unlikely to have protectable business secrets, and an employee is, absent, an expressed and effective contractual restraint, and absent any subterfuge or misappropriation of a database, entitled to take customer contacts with him. I very much doubt that this sort of cowboy employer would have in place any sort of enforceable restrictive covenant. In any event, the employer has repudiated the contract of employment by giving only three days notice.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff