Unfair Dismissal
Discussion
Is anyone familiar with this?
From what I read, after 6th April 2012, you have to have held your position for 2 years?
Source: https://www.gov.uk/dismiss-staff/eligibility-to-cl...
Can anyone confirm?
From what I read, after 6th April 2012, you have to have held your position for 2 years?
Source: https://www.gov.uk/dismiss-staff/eligibility-to-cl...
Can anyone confirm?
Following due process means that if they had grinned at you and said "boys will be boys" for previous offences, then it might be slightly unfair.
If you've been warned, properly, etc etc, then you are bang to rights.
If, on the other hand, you have an employee who is coming up to 24 months, get your HR arse in gear.
If you've been warned, properly, etc etc, then you are bang to rights.
If, on the other hand, you have an employee who is coming up to 24 months, get your HR arse in gear.
rufmeister said:
Thanks.
So, if I was let go for not turning up for work without notifying them, remaining uncontactable, using work van for personal use, turning up intoxicated, on several occasions, and sacked as a result, could this be classed as discriminatory?
What, did you expect a promotion?So, if I was let go for not turning up for work without notifying them, remaining uncontactable, using work van for personal use, turning up intoxicated, on several occasions, and sacked as a result, could this be classed as discriminatory?
As usual, some well meant but inaccurate stuff. Under two years continuous employment, no due process is required. You can be slung out for good reason or bad, or for no reason, provided that there is no discrimination on the basis of one of the categories protected by statute. Absent gross misconduct, the employer should give the contractual period of notice, but process is irrelevant unless the employee has unfair dismissal protection.
What is this thread about, anyway? Idle trollage, or is there a real world question here?
What is this thread about, anyway? Idle trollage, or is there a real world question here?
The employee is probably making BS threats. If he is daft enough to claim in the tribunal, his claim will be chucked out summarily if he cannot show sufficient qualifying service. He would have to show either a discrimination claim or a whistleblower claim [EDIT; to keep completists happy, there are some other possible claims too, but this is a summary]. If the facts are as stated by the OP, the employee will be toast.
It is possible that the OP went to see a duff High Street lawyer who has not caught up with the extended unfair dismissal qualifying period.
On a wider note, the two year qualifying period takes employment law back a way. It gives carte blanche to unfair employers to hire and fire at will, absent discrimination, whistleblowing and a few other things.
OP, I am not referring to you as an unfair employer. On the facts you state, the employee could probably have been lawfully summarily dismissed for gross misconduct (turning up drunk would be enough for that in many instances).
There are broadly two aspects to dismissal. The contractual aspect (give contractual notice or the dismissal is wrongful, save in a gross misconduct case), and the statutory aspect (do not dismiss unreasonably, if the employee had sufficient service to qualify for unfair dismissal protection).
OP, as an employer, you should either take a course or read a book on basic employment law. Pitfalls await the uninformed employer.
The above is a broad summary and not intended as a comprehensive treatise.
It is possible that the OP went to see a duff High Street lawyer who has not caught up with the extended unfair dismissal qualifying period.
On a wider note, the two year qualifying period takes employment law back a way. It gives carte blanche to unfair employers to hire and fire at will, absent discrimination, whistleblowing and a few other things.
OP, I am not referring to you as an unfair employer. On the facts you state, the employee could probably have been lawfully summarily dismissed for gross misconduct (turning up drunk would be enough for that in many instances).
There are broadly two aspects to dismissal. The contractual aspect (give contractual notice or the dismissal is wrongful, save in a gross misconduct case), and the statutory aspect (do not dismiss unreasonably, if the employee had sufficient service to qualify for unfair dismissal protection).
OP, as an employer, you should either take a course or read a book on basic employment law. Pitfalls await the uninformed employer.
The above is a broad summary and not intended as a comprehensive treatise.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 12th May 16:26
rufmeister said:
Thanks.
So, if I was let go for not turning up for work without notifying them, remaining uncontactable, using work van for personal use, turning up intoxicated, on several occasions, and sacked as a result, could this be classed as discriminatory?
If you were on the railway the RMT would probably argue that all this was brought on by the trauma of being given orange gloves instead of grey ones and you'd keep your job. So, if I was let go for not turning up for work without notifying them, remaining uncontactable, using work van for personal use, turning up intoxicated, on several occasions, and sacked as a result, could this be classed as discriminatory?
Breadvan72 said:
On a wider note, the two year qualifying period takes employment law back a way. It gives carte blanche to unfair employers to hire and fire at will, absent discrimination, whistleblowing and a few other things.
Off topic, I know, but...There is a point of view that asks why is there such a thing as a protected employee in the first place?
When you start work you agree a notice period and if you choose to move to another job then you resign, giving the appropriate notice. That doesn't change regardless of how long you've worked there. Yet from an employer perspective for the first two years it's the same, if you want to end the relationship you give the appropriate notice and the relationship comes to an end. Why should that change after 2 years? Why should the employer lose that option when the employee does not?
The answer is: regulated capitalism. The law intervenes to add balance to an inherently unbalanced situation. Social history shows that employers will throw people out for capricious reasons if not prevented from doing so.
That is happening again now. In some industries, employment protection is practically a dead letter, as even where the dismissal is discriminatory the employee is too scared to complain. It costs a chunk of money to start a claim at a tribunal. The law centres have mostly closed, and CABs are hard pressed and mostly not very good. High Street law firms are going bust because of legal aid cuts or are withdrawing into property work and other lower intensity stuff (you could never get legal aid for ET claims, but you used to be able to get a bit of advice on the old Green Form scheme).
Hire and fire culture has returned. Many of those employed at below the national average wage are in effect a new proletariat, working in offices and warehouses and call centres with, in effect, few rights. They may have rights, but they are hard to enforce.
Zero hours contracts are a good indication of what happens when employment practices are not regulated.
That is happening again now. In some industries, employment protection is practically a dead letter, as even where the dismissal is discriminatory the employee is too scared to complain. It costs a chunk of money to start a claim at a tribunal. The law centres have mostly closed, and CABs are hard pressed and mostly not very good. High Street law firms are going bust because of legal aid cuts or are withdrawing into property work and other lower intensity stuff (you could never get legal aid for ET claims, but you used to be able to get a bit of advice on the old Green Form scheme).
Hire and fire culture has returned. Many of those employed at below the national average wage are in effect a new proletariat, working in offices and warehouses and call centres with, in effect, few rights. They may have rights, but they are hard to enforce.
Zero hours contracts are a good indication of what happens when employment practices are not regulated.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 12th May 13:19
Congrats, and worry not.
Once you have recovered your composure and are back at work after (I hope) awarding yourself a chunk of paternity leave, please consider this. An idle and baseless threat from a joke employee should not make you anxious. Maybe invest in some HR training for yourself and any other managers whom you employ.
Once you have recovered your composure and are back at work after (I hope) awarding yourself a chunk of paternity leave, please consider this. An idle and baseless threat from a joke employee should not make you anxious. Maybe invest in some HR training for yourself and any other managers whom you employ.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff