Sacking a new starter
Discussion
Long story short, new starter-been there about 33 days (I recall). Continued absences-sickness, ill granny etc etc. Basically just not working out.
Technically they've been employed a month so presumably the employer will have to fork out a weeks notice to get rid? Performance I believe will be able to show they haven't covered their wages so as well as poor performance there is a clear business reason to be rid.
Employer is the type to sit down and have a "thanks but no thanks" chat but I wondered about any possible come back if it isn't for the right reasons and they wanted to go all compensayshun-thoughts?
Technically they've been employed a month so presumably the employer will have to fork out a weeks notice to get rid? Performance I believe will be able to show they haven't covered their wages so as well as poor performance there is a clear business reason to be rid.
Employer is the type to sit down and have a "thanks but no thanks" chat but I wondered about any possible come back if it isn't for the right reasons and they wanted to go all compensayshun-thoughts?
psi310398 said:
I hate to ask but is there any danger at all of being bitten in the arse by some protected characteristic point even there is a clear justification for parting company?
Yup, its a minefield these days!"They only fired me because I am lazy and dishonest. Its a disability!"
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You thought wrong. Sacking someone because of a protected characteristic, or because of whistleblowing or trade union activity, or asserting statutory rights, could land the employer in bother.Absent such factors, crack on.
BTW you can get rid of anyone, anytime (orders for reinstatement are vanishingly rare - I have seen just one in 33 years), but there may be financial and reputational consequences of getting rid of people in some circumstances.
Shuvi McTupya said:
psi310398 said:
I hate to ask but is there any danger at all of being bitten in the arse by some protected characteristic point even there is a clear justification for parting company?
Yup, its a minefield these days!"They only fired me because I am lazy and dishonest. Its a disability!"
Breadvan72 said:
Urban myth. The majority of tribunal claims against employers fail. This has always been the case. Those few that succeed tend mostly to result in quite small financial awards. Big awards may arise if an employer sacks, for example, an investment banker for whistleblowing, or for being pregnant, or such like.
Sure, I was thinking more that it would be a very good reason to ensure documenting things correctly and thoroughly and doing things à la lettre in case it did subsequently go to tribunal. Actually quite a good deterrent to the ex-employee even trying, I'd have thought.The few cases I've been involved in tended to go better for the employer when we had been fastidious in our record-keeping and less well where a manager had said or done stupid things in front of witnesses.
From what I’m aware of it’s of no other reason than sick days and balancing the books. The new starter is not disabled (as far as I’m aware) as it would preclude working in that industry somewhat.
“They ain’t turning up which means they ain’t covering their wages” was about as in depth as I got. Reasons have been a couple of sick days, a day off for a doctors appointment and an ill granny who needed looking after, not the best first month of employment
“They ain’t turning up which means they ain’t covering their wages” was about as in depth as I got. Reasons have been a couple of sick days, a day off for a doctors appointment and an ill granny who needed looking after, not the best first month of employment
LaurasOtherHalf said:
Long story short, new starter-been there about 33 days (I recall). Continued absences-sickness, ill granny etc etc. Basically just not working out.
I would suggest you make sure there is no disability before you terminate for absences. However if there is a disability termination can still be possible, I would suggest you contact someone like me (or even one of those external HR types) to make sure you follow the appropriate procedures. anonymous said:
[redacted]
With two years continuity of employment (the calculation of this is sometimes complex, sometimes easy), an employee obtains protection against unfair dismissal. Unfair dismissal means, in effect, unreasonable dismissal.IIRC, when the statutory concept of unfair dismissal was introduced in the early 1970s, the qualifying period was three months, or perhaps six. The period has moved around since then. It tends to be shorter when Labour are in power and longer when the Tories are in power.
Wrongful dismissal is a common law concept and means dismissal in breach of contract. At common law, an employer can dismiss an employee for any reason or no reason, so long as as contractual notice is given. Summary dismissal is only lawful if the employee commits a repudiatory breach of contract, usually by committing a form of misconduct so serious as to be gross misconduct. Stealing, fighting, groping, porn watching, and so on.
Statutory protection from dismissal on grounds such as protected characteristic, whistleblowing, union activity and so on does not depend on a qualifying period of service.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 20th October 19:19
Why so coy? Are you the employer? if not, why do you care?
The employer could be fronty and sack the employee without notice, hoping that the employee won't claim for the week's money (or whatever notice period he or she is on), but if the employer is that tight or that broke, it sounds like a dodgy place to work anyway.
Anyway, that's enough freebies for the Capitalist oppressors of the working (or throwing a sickie) classes!
The employer could be fronty and sack the employee without notice, hoping that the employee won't claim for the week's money (or whatever notice period he or she is on), but if the employer is that tight or that broke, it sounds like a dodgy place to work anyway.
Anyway, that's enough freebies for the Capitalist oppressors of the working (or throwing a sickie) classes!
SydneyBridge said:
Dont even think you have to do that on the probation period ...
You think wrong.Genuine question: why do people express view on things they know nothing about? I know that this is only the internet, but the habit puzzles me. I know Jack about lots of things, and tend not to say Jack about stuff that I am unfamiliar with.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff