Unfair dismissal after four years.
Discussion
Brother in law has been sacked after four years part and full time work in a London restaurant. Reason given is for carrying out a procedure (cancelling service charge and taking it as cash at the tables request) that is also carried out by many of his co workers. The cash goes in to a pot and is split at the end of the evening anyway, so it's not as if he is cutting anyone out. Turns out that this is against company policy, but he has never been given a handbook, nor has he been told not to do this ( his line managers do it also). Can he be sacked for this? What sort of compensation could he get for unfair dismissal?
If it's against the rules then he can be sacked, the fact others do it is irrelevant. Compo in a successful claim is years away and usually around 3 months wages.
The claim in a tribunal is normally around the process used to dismiss, rather than the deed itself. if they dismissed in line with laid down policy / ACAS guidelines, then he's bang to rights.
The claim in a tribunal is normally around the process used to dismiss, rather than the deed itself. if they dismissed in line with laid down policy / ACAS guidelines, then he's bang to rights.
Could it not be argued that a precedence was set by way of others doing it?
Although…even IF this were a valid argument you would have to argue and prove that the manager on shift at the time knew about it happening and also remember whom it was that had done it…then prove it had happened by way of requesting reports which most likely they no longer have.
I have to add though, you will not get far saying the manager does it because all you will get back is that the manager has a different rule set to a worker and is allowed to authorise things like this.
In short, yes it was the wrong thing to do if "everyone" is doing it...but if this is the case why was he singled out? is it just that he was doing something else that they did not like and wanted rid of him?
Although…even IF this were a valid argument you would have to argue and prove that the manager on shift at the time knew about it happening and also remember whom it was that had done it…then prove it had happened by way of requesting reports which most likely they no longer have.
I have to add though, you will not get far saying the manager does it because all you will get back is that the manager has a different rule set to a worker and is allowed to authorise things like this.
In short, yes it was the wrong thing to do if "everyone" is doing it...but if this is the case why was he singled out? is it just that he was doing something else that they did not like and wanted rid of him?
I understand the tax avoidance issue - in this instance, the tax benefit to him (assuming that he does not declare the earnings in a self assessment tax return) is the grand total of about £1 a week!
He is a team leader, and has managers codes for the till that allow him to do this. As I said, the rest of the restaurant ( everyone has access to managers codes even if they are only waiters and shouldn't have such authority).
If in the four years that he has worked there (his first restaurant job), he has never been told even verbally that this isn't the procedure how can he be sacked for it?
Yes, his line manager doesn't like him. This line manager carried out the investigation, disciplinary and sacking, which I don't believe is allowed. No verbal or written warnings have been given, nor has he had any throughout his employment.
He is a team leader, and has managers codes for the till that allow him to do this. As I said, the rest of the restaurant ( everyone has access to managers codes even if they are only waiters and shouldn't have such authority).
If in the four years that he has worked there (his first restaurant job), he has never been told even verbally that this isn't the procedure how can he be sacked for it?
Yes, his line manager doesn't like him. This line manager carried out the investigation, disciplinary and sacking, which I don't believe is allowed. No verbal or written warnings have been given, nor has he had any throughout his employment.
JimexPL said:
He is a team leader, and has managers codes for the till that allow him to do this. As I said, the rest of the restaurant ( everyone has access to managers codes even if they are only waiters and shouldn't have such authority).
If in the four years that he has worked there (his first restaurant job), he has never been told even verbally that this isn't the procedure how can he be sacked for it?
Yes, his line manager doesn't like him. This line manager carried out the investigation, disciplinary and sacking, which I don't believe is allowed. No verbal or written warnings have been given, nor has he had any throughout his employment.
On the face of it this seems unfair:If in the four years that he has worked there (his first restaurant job), he has never been told even verbally that this isn't the procedure how can he be sacked for it?
Yes, his line manager doesn't like him. This line manager carried out the investigation, disciplinary and sacking, which I don't believe is allowed. No verbal or written warnings have been given, nor has he had any throughout his employment.
A process is being used by all over an extended period, presumably with the management's knowledge. Nobody (?) is counselled not to do this, no written procedures are produced or distributed. An individual is singled out and summarily dismissed. This fails the test of reasonableness IMHO.
The procedures attached to the dismissal may be flawed, too - usually investigation and disciplinary hearing/decision should be separated. However, this approach could be held to be reasonable in the circumstances (such as a very small workplace where it was not practical to do this). Is this the way these matters are usually dealt with in this restaurant, or a departure from usual processes - the answer will help to determine.
I think the tax avoidance angle is a bit of a red herring tbh - except it may be management realising that the offence of aiding and abetting avoidance (or some such) has serious consequences for them as a business. Individuals would have to answer to HMRC for their actions.
Would they really have sacked him for doing as you described alone? I'm guessing there were other reasons, and this is just an excuse. Who ever sacks an employee they like for breaking a rule which is also broken by others?
He should still get advice from the CAB, and follow it through to an IT, as it sounds as if they haven't followed the correct process at all, at least it will sound better when he applies for another job, and the prospective employer finds out he was sacked
He should still get advice from the CAB, and follow it through to an IT, as it sounds as if they haven't followed the correct process at all, at least it will sound better when he applies for another job, and the prospective employer finds out he was sacked
He was initially suspended, due to the loss of £80 during a shift, which had been refunded to someones card using his authority code. I understand that after he was cleared of this (several people have his code because of the way that the restaurant is managed, and he wasn't in the restaurant at the time of the refund) the service charge issue was brought up. The restaurant is one of 5 in London, and up until his move to their new canary wharf site to take on the role of team leader and to train the new staff it seems that he was well regarded part of the team.
Finding another waiting job in London won't be a problem, but after working for what would be considered a long time in the catering trade for one company, leaving under a cloud when you have done nothing wrong is a bit hard to swallow!
Finding another waiting job in London won't be a problem, but after working for what would be considered a long time in the catering trade for one company, leaving under a cloud when you have done nothing wrong is a bit hard to swallow!
An update for you.
He wrote a fairly lengthy appeal letter. The regional manager who is due to undertake the appeal moved the date from Tuesday to today because he needed additional time to investigate issues that had been raised in the letter.
He spent some of Sunday walking around the Southbank and Covent Garden and now has two trials and one interview arranged, so will already have alternative employment lined up regardless of the outcome.
He wrote a fairly lengthy appeal letter. The regional manager who is due to undertake the appeal moved the date from Tuesday to today because he needed additional time to investigate issues that had been raised in the letter.
He spent some of Sunday walking around the Southbank and Covent Garden and now has two trials and one interview arranged, so will already have alternative employment lined up regardless of the outcome.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff