Fired on the spot
Discussion
A chap I know has been working for a local business for just under 2 years.
His boss recently took the hump at something and fired him on the spot, literally 'You're f
king fired - get out'. Let's assume the misdemeanour was trivial and certainly not gross misconduct. In fact, from what I understand, the boss was annoyed that he couldn't find the employee whom he wanted to run a personal errand when he was out of the office for a regular and legitimate business reason.
The chap had no contract of any sort, and was paid PAYE on a weekly basis.
He promptly gathered his things, left, and has received pay up to the day he left and P45 subsequently.
What is his legal position? I assume there is an implied employment of some sort, even without a contract? Does he have redress for (say) a month's pay in lieu of notice?
Facts:
1) This is not me :-)
2) Let's assume the reason for the boss wanting him gone is immaterial, and certainly not a legal justification - gross misconduct etc. I'm not that interested in 'Ooh, maybe he deservec it.' comments. :-)
His boss recently took the hump at something and fired him on the spot, literally 'You're f
king fired - get out'. Let's assume the misdemeanour was trivial and certainly not gross misconduct. In fact, from what I understand, the boss was annoyed that he couldn't find the employee whom he wanted to run a personal errand when he was out of the office for a regular and legitimate business reason.The chap had no contract of any sort, and was paid PAYE on a weekly basis.
He promptly gathered his things, left, and has received pay up to the day he left and P45 subsequently.
What is his legal position? I assume there is an implied employment of some sort, even without a contract? Does he have redress for (say) a month's pay in lieu of notice?
Facts:
1) This is not me :-)
2) Let's assume the reason for the boss wanting him gone is immaterial, and certainly not a legal justification - gross misconduct etc. I'm not that interested in 'Ooh, maybe he deservec it.' comments. :-)
agtlaw said:
RtdRacer said:
My feeling is that without a contract and at 1.8 years of employment, he is only entitled to 1 week's pay?
RR
If he worked there for nearly 2 years then he had a contractual relationship.RR
simoid said:
I think he may mean his mate'll be entitled to the bare minimum notice period, since nothing more was specified...?
Exactly. I think it is a week.AGT - he can't afford an employment lawyer - this is near minimum wage stuff. THe employer, I think, knows this and hence flouts the law.
simoid said:
Has your mate asked his old employeer for any sort of severance pay?
That might be a good starting point.
I am drafting him that letter right now. The main reason I asked on here is so I can understand better what he is entitled to without a contract.That might be a good starting point.
I'm pretty sure now that the statutory claim would be for 1 week's pay - that's why you should always get a contract, kids!
RtdRacer said:
I don't think he felt he had one written, oral or implied!
I'll let someone with more fact answer that one, but my impression is that the continued mutual relationship between your mate doing the work, and the employer paying the wages, might form some sort of contract.On the facts as stated this was:-
(1) an unfair dismissal. This is a statutory concept, which is based on the unreasonableness of the employer's action.
(2) a wrongful dismissal. This is a common law concept. Dismissal without notice is wrongful, save in the case of gross misconduct by the employee. The employee was entitled by statute to at least a week's notice, and a longer notice period might be inferred at common law from the nature of the employment.
Of course the employee had a contract. It was either an oral contract, or a contract to be inferred from the conduct of the parties. The employer was probably also in breach of his statutory obligation to provide a written statement of the basic terms of the employment.
The employee can make a claim to an Employment Tribunal alleging both unfair and wrongful dismissal, but won't recover twice for the same loss. He must act promptly, as the time limit for an unfair dismissal claim is three months from termination of employment. The time limit for a wrongful dismissal claim is six years, but the unfair dismissal claim is likely to be the more valuable one here.
(1) an unfair dismissal. This is a statutory concept, which is based on the unreasonableness of the employer's action.
(2) a wrongful dismissal. This is a common law concept. Dismissal without notice is wrongful, save in the case of gross misconduct by the employee. The employee was entitled by statute to at least a week's notice, and a longer notice period might be inferred at common law from the nature of the employment.
Of course the employee had a contract. It was either an oral contract, or a contract to be inferred from the conduct of the parties. The employer was probably also in breach of his statutory obligation to provide a written statement of the basic terms of the employment.
The employee can make a claim to an Employment Tribunal alleging both unfair and wrongful dismissal, but won't recover twice for the same loss. He must act promptly, as the time limit for an unfair dismissal claim is three months from termination of employment. The time limit for a wrongful dismissal claim is six years, but the unfair dismissal claim is likely to be the more valuable one here.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff