Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by SarEl

  1. Virgin net v. Herbert - the original EAT was, I think 2002/03, and went to the HIgh Court, I think, 2005, established that contractual notice did not count towards the qualifying period but that for the purposes of calculating the one year qualifying period the test was 51 weeks plus a weeks statutory notice = 52 weeks. The claimant actually lost the case because they were attempting to include contractual notice.
  2. So - is the problem that you are not hitting targets or that you work with women?
  3. True - because unfortunately there is "smoke without fire" as we all know. I am not huge fan of CRB checks for a whole variety of reaons, including the fact that police records are not as accurate as they ought to be. Unfortunately, I think it is a case of there being no "right answer". Like Atlas - I might deplore some of the wrongs it has created, but as a parent I think differently. Mind you, given my daughter was brought up "right" she doesn't need to ask for CRB checks. She was taught to kick them in the g....s, gouge their eyes out, and ask questions later. So no worries there!!!
  4. That is true - but it does not mean that the employer should be unfair in their decisions. Only that they cannot be challenged as unfair dismissals (unless for sex, race other factors).
  5. Possibly. The whole thing is complicated by the (possible - not sure about that) fact that the contract is already in place - allegedly. In such instances normal practice is to assume one weeks notice. Continuous employment does not start until you have actually turned up for work - but contract law does not need continuous employment.
  6. Not necessarily. I know that sounds daft, but it isn't. You do need some legal advice here.
  7. Even if the job was unconditional, they can withdraw an offer giving notice. Staturory notice is one week, it's more than a week from the start date, so you aren't entitled to payment. In short - yes, they can. Sorry
  8. Sorry - you are correct - and not! It does not matter whether he was charged. The arrest is relevant intelligence and shows up on an eCRB
  9. it would help if you explained why you are asking. The explanation provided here is partial - the facts matter!
  10. ACAS cannot help here - not that they can help often. You need legal advice. It isn't clear here who owes who what or what has been done.
  11. Hmm. Frivolity over? This is serious and it's nice to see someone on Facebook who deserves sacking. Go to the union - this is disability discrimation and having done the " informal route" ir really is time for the heavy guns. It may be a store of 14 people, but I bet the company take it more seriously. Just make sure that everything is in writing - download copies of the pages, and put everything in writing. And by the way - the doctor is being lazy. Being over 18 does not ever mean they can't make a diagnosis.
  12. Personally I am a kleftiko fan But I agree with the sub-forum idea - perhaps we could name it after another part of the anotomy more appropriate for people who post their work problems on it?
  13. I am afraid that there is a legal technical term for this - screwed. Sorry, but you have shut the barn door after the horse has bolted. The messages were in the public domain - that is how the other staff were able to sit around during their lunch breaks and gossip about you. Gossip which I regret to say, you brought on yourself. So if this is flavour of the month, you really have no cause to complain about your employer allowing it - the staff are doing what people do when they have time on teir hands (lunch breaks) and having a good old gossip about what you put "out there" for them to gossip about. What you attempt as a mitigatio is your concern, but my advise would be that if you go in there blaming everybody else for what you did, you are very likely to be dismissed. If you had poor training, you should have taken this up with your manager - not the entire world on Facebook. You complain that others have gone behind your back to complain - isn't that just what you have done? If you have made mistakes, then you have made mistakes. It might have been handled better, perhaps by your colleagues, perhaps by your manager, and also perhaps by you - but they are still mistakes. Looking at this from the employers point of view, you seem to be nothing but a problem for them - and you do not want to come across in that way at a hearing by having a go at your manager for not having you trained properly, your colleagues for complaining about mistakes to your manager etc. etc. And raising all this now, after the event, is going to make it look like you are making up any old excuse to get yourself out of this. My advice would be to own up to being stupid, say that you regret your actions and plead for them to do anything other than dismiss you.
  14. This of course only means that you are able to make a claim - not that you will win one.
  15. It depends. Tribunals do not like late documents but they will generally allow them if there is cause. You can object, but all this is likely to do is cause a delay while you have a chance to peruse them.
  16. No, I think not. A reduction in business is always on the cards, as is an increase. It doesn't matter what your busness is. The employees have over 52 weeks service, so can claim unfair dismissal. The only reason why there would be a cause to dismiss the fixed term contract staff would be because they have fixed term contracts - and that would be because they have fixed term contracts and others don't. That would make the reason for dismssal their fixed term contracts - which is unlawful.
  17. No. Afraid not. Because it isn't a year any way - it is 52 weeks. And there is no "less a day". But since, by my adding, 52 weks ended on 27thth February, I make it one day over and therefore within time.
  18. A fixed term contract of two years or more entitles the employee to be considered redundant (in law - i.e. they are entitled to be treated the same way as any other potentially redundant person) if the contract is not renewed. It is unlawful to make someone redundant purely on the grounds that they have a fixed term contract. So if it known that the school cannot continue to employ everyone and a redundancy situation occurs, the school cannot choose to terminate only the fixed term contracts. I am at a loss as to why so many employers even bother with them any more. They are largely an anachronism from the old days when fixed term employees had few employment rights, and cause employers more headaches than they are worth.
  19. I agree. It seems relatively clear that they are looking to harmonise contracts, and this will be a relatively huge task for the union to work on. Since this may involve changes to more than when a pay rise happens, I think you would be best advised to concentrate on what the employer is proposing as an overall package rather than one small factor. At the moment you are quite lucky to have an employer who is looking to two year deals on pay rises - many people have (and have already had) two or three year deals for no pay rises! So perhaps doing your best to lend support to the unions arguments and getting the best deal possible for the future would be a good move.
  20. There's absolutely no reason why they cannot ask such a thing, and may be a requirement from their insurers. Whether students are over 18 or not, you are attending as responsible staff.
  21. Best practice is practice. Not law. It counts for nothing. You may not like her comments, you may not like her opinions - but she is in no way bound to be balanced or even handed. She is the "prosecution"! You may be, and no doubt are, very upset and angry, but that isn't going to get you anywhere. If you stop and think for one moment in an objective way - your story is implausible. That doesn't mean you are lying necessarily - but it may be that that is a valid viewpoint. You were at home. Presumably you had not phoned your colleague so that he could overhear your rant. So your phone "dialled itself". Yes, that can occasionally happen. But out of all the random numbers that it could have dialled - it dialled the one person that you happened to be ranting about in an offensive manner? Somebody up there doesn't like you! Her comments are not defamatory (in law), and from the employers point of view (and quite possibly from your colleagues - who perhaps has a slightly different opinion than you do) has simply done her job. So you have two choices. You can go on the offensive, slating her for biased and "defamaory" opinions, and for refusing to conduct your defence for you (which is what you are saying - it is your job to offer the defence, not hers) - which is almost certainly going to lead to a fair dismissal, given that your views about your colleague, whether intended to be heard or not, have been heard by the colleague (who is undoubtedly angry with you, since they were onbviously not in a very forgiving mood), by HR and by the employer. If you do this it is highly likely that this will play into exactly what the HR officer has said about you, whether true or not. Or you can take responsibility for what was an unintended, and entirely accidental, circumstance; make it clear that this was a private and heat of the moment occurence after a somewhat stressful day; that your comments were ill-judged but neither reflected your views nor the way that you would act in a professional manner at work; and plead your good performance and attitude at work. You can call character witnesses from amongst your colleagues if they will agree to appear. And you can hope to put this unfortunate incident behind you, albeit quite possibly not without some warning on your record. Which if you are correct and you are not really like this at all, will be off your record in time and forgotten about.
  22. The latter I suspect. The member of the interview panel is hardly going to agree that this was said, and I cannot see how your friend will prove it. Sorry
  23. No - Postggi is correct. A deduction from wages cannot take the wage below the NMW unless it is final salary payments. If you intend to return to work then they should not have taken anything unless it is over the NMW. The actual site reference is http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/Pay/DG_175878
  24. I perhaps did not make myself clear. The only facts that she is to determine are those about the incident complained about. Since the people that you work with were not present, and didn't receive the voicemail, then their views are not relevant to the investigation. If you wish to call them as defence witnesses you can (if they agree to become involved). It is not her job to be balanced or to present a wider context. Her job is to investigate only the incident as it relates to the voicemail. And however it happened, it happened and is recorded for posterity. Or not. So you must mitigate the circumstances.
  • Create New...