Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


sangie5952 last won the day on April 29 2019

sangie5952 had the most liked content!


1,216 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. With the best interests of the OP at the heart of this - he isn't getting his job back and life isn't fair.I have now seen the details, and no - its probably not fair. Life isn't. My advice is to claim what he is entitled to - the money he is owed and holiday - via ACAS / a tribunal claim.Join a union. Learn the point. Move on. The money he is owed is simple.take what he is owed and then get on with his life.I appreciate there may be other "facts" - they really aren't all that important.There are no price tags on this. Stuff isn't fair in life.
  2. Well then we will have to disagree. But whilst we are making up stuff and wildly speculating on "facts", I will just point out that if, of course, there is more to this story, then your strategy could in fact be very dangerous. What actually happened may not be something that the OP - or her son - want in a court of law. Perhaps his story is entirely true. Perhaps it is entirely untrue and he has been let go for some other reason. For example, maybe he made a racist comment to his black trainer, who is now refusing to have him in the workplace; and his manager has taken pity on him and is giving him an excuse to learn his lesson without anyone knowing? The problem with speculation is that there's always a lot of it, and it is rarely ever a good basis upon which to argue law. Of course, if they OP takes my advice, and simply claims what they are actually owed, and through a tribunal, they will almost certainly get the money without a tribunal and with the support of ACAS; and without any claim fee at all. Alternatively, I look forward to hearing that the county court has overruled the law, if someone can let me know when that happens?
  3. I did not provide any further links because Ethel already did so and that is all that is required. The law sets down the notice periods, as Ethel has linked to, unless varied by individual contractual terms. This is not a case of choice - there are either better terms offered by contract, or there are the statutory terms set down in law. There are therefore no implied terms, as you suggest there are. The law is very clear. The practice of that law is very clear. Even ACAS get this correct. So if you are suggesting that "implied terms" (and by their very nature, an implied term needs something to suggest it is true!) may determine employment notice periods, then I think you need to evidence this use in law. I certainly am very convinced on this - you won't be able to, because there is none. Whilst I have every sympathy with this young person, whatever the facts of the matter, you are suggesting that a court of law operate on the basis of sympathy rather than law. That is not what courts are for. And your argument is somewhat spurious, even if a powerful tearjerker. Nobody is required to commit themselves to any period of time in employment, nor to abandon looking elsewhere for employment. This is not slavery or indenture. The "bargain" is that one works and that one gets paid. What is wrong is that the young man in question has worked and not been paid for that work (and possibly some holiday too) That is the only thing that is wrong in law. Whatever the facts of the matter he is entitled to be paid for the time he has worked, regardless of anything he may or may not have done. Neither the facts of what may have happened, nor speculation, change that fact. Even if he had done something that warranted a deduction from wages (and that doesn't seem likely since, without a written contract there could be no such clause, which is required by law except in the case of payroll errors which are treated slightly differently) he is entitled to a payslip and an explanation of such deductions made. It's a shame he's lost his job, and perhaps the details around this deserve sympathy. But I do not confuse sympathy with the law or rights.
  4. I don't have the wider detail to which Bankfodder is referring, but I do wish to clarify one point - there is no implied term to give one weeks notice in the first month, because there is law that makes this matter entirely and utterly clear. In the absence of an actual written contractual term, the notice period is that which the law sets out. No court, civil or otherwise, has the lawful right to operate contrary to the law and decide otherwise. On a small matter of opinion, I would advise against trying to talk to the employer yourself. I do understand where Bankfodder is coming from in suggesting that, but I have substantial experience in "talking to employers" on behalf of other people - it's my job! Being totally blunt, there is often a "variation" in the employers version of events compared to the employees version. Obviously, at a fundamental level, that's to be expected. But it also doesn't mean either party is not telling the truth. Truth is often in the eye of the beholder. And sometimes, yes, one or other party lies about things to make themselves look better. My job is to untangle that. Your job isn't. Your job is to be "parent". It is possible that he's not told you the truth. So when the employer tells you the truth, are you going to believe them? What does that say to your son if you believe the employer- even if it's true?! Or are you going to argue with the employer and say that your sons version is true? Will that improve things any? Etc. Etc. And if the employer is lying, is you talking to them going to fix anything? In the end, he's now a grown up, and having his parent intervene may or may not feel ok to him, but it's a big bad world out there and he needs to deal with it (with some wise advice from the parents) himself. There are no more notes to the teacher to be written.... Whatever has gone on here, it's not an auspicious start to his career and he knows that. But there are silver linings.... he has absolutely no excuse to now not realise that if he intends to work, he needs to join a union, because it is their job to talk to the employer when things go wrong, and even if he's done something silly that has got him here, a union official doesn't care about that - precisely because we aren't the parent!
  5. Sorry, but I'm afraid Bankfodder had made an error in law. In employment law, there is no notice period of the person had worked less than a month, so no notice pay is due. He is only entitled to the weeks work plus any accrued holiday pay. An employment tribunal claim is free to make, and is more beautiful than the county court. Basically he would need to send the employer a letter before action saying that he intends to take legal action unless the amount owed is paid within a reasonable time (usually 21 or 28 days). If it isn't paid you can start pre- claim processes with ACAS, and for these small claims, that is usually enough because it's too much trouble for the employer not to pay up.
  6. There are time limits to claims, dating from the point at which there is an alleged diagnosis - in your case it would be 2011, and you would now be massively out of time as you knew in 2011 that he was being affected by hearing loss. However, it is also not so simple as "working in factory" = "deafness caused by employment". I presume whoever told you this was a lawyer specialising in such claims? In which case the obvious answer is to get a second opinion, although I suspect that what your have been told is the correct answer.
  7. And that's as they should do. If there is a proven case of neglect or abuse that goes to the DBS. They would then have to decide on fitness to undertake this kind of work. Which is why we wait. There's nothing positive that can be done, but multiple ways to screw up!
  8. I realise this is hard on both of you for different reasons, but you just need to stick with the plan. She goes to the disciplinary and she tells an unadorned version of events sticking to the basic facts. The door was locked as normal. Someone came in at XX o'clock. At YY o'clock, when she was doing [a job] she became aware of the fact that a client had left the premises. She went to retrieve the client. Maybe what she then did - but really basic (for example, checked client ok, wrote up report or whatever). She does not say she knows that the door must have not closed properly - unless she checked then she can't say that. If they ask her for an explanation she can only say that she guesses the door may have stuck again after her colleague came in, and she can produce the report from the book as evidence this isn't the first time it has done this. That's the story, and that's the end of the story - she needs to keep it simple. Don't assert anything she can't prove. Neither can they prove anything, so don't give them a chance to extrapolate. To my mind, the biggest loophole in this is that it appears nobody was actually keeping an eye on the clients, and if they are so vulnerable that they must be kept indoors and locked in, then shouldn't someone have been watching them? As I said before, outside is not the only place that dangers lurk. This must be a weakness in the argument, and since she is the senior member of staff, that may fall down to her. But she needs to try to stay calm and not "over-explain" anything. She needs to deny any neglect ever. She needs to point to her blemish free record. She needs to say that she will defend her record in whatever way she must - and that's all she need say on that, don't start issuing threats. And the less she complicates the rest of it by saying too much, the more they will hear what she is saying about defending herself however she must. Then you wait for an outcome and you see what the new employer says. If she's dismissed and the new employer withdraws the offer, then you are left with no alternative - it will have to be a tribunal. But we need to let it play out and see if that can be avoided. As soon as it gets to a tribunal, things get worse and the risks are that she loses. So we want to avoid that if possible. despite everything, if she can get to the point of starting the new job, she walks away and forgets about it. That's what you need to hope for - that she lands the new job. Having one's day in court is never what people think it will be, and there's no satisfaction to be got via that route, even if you win! Trust me, she wants to avoid it if she can.
  9. My views on an entirely irrelevant matter . But when I voted, at least I was fully aware of the issues that I was dealing with and voted accordingly - I did not go around making stuff up to suit my personal opinions. The quote you placed here did not come from ACAS, but from an ambulance chasers site, which is designed to lure in the unwary. So that claim you made was not true, as was much of what you posted earlier on and which you now say wasn't true. I am wondering if, at any point, you will realise that your personal opinion does not constitute the law. Removing a shift allowance (or whatever it is called) that you are allegedly not entitled to, a possible contractual change (because if the allowance accrues to an element of work that you do not do, it isn't even a contractual change - it is a contractual affirmation) , is not a sanction. A sanction is "a threatened penalty for disobeying a law or rule" You are not being threatened with a punishment for anything. It is not a penalty. It is a contractual matter only, which you may or may not be right about -although the more you say here, the more it appears that the employer may be correct and you may not be entitled to it - hence the advice to stop digging holes. And since you have now decided that anything you dislike, even though you are wrong about it, deserves personally offensive remarks and insults, I wish you well of your employers. You appear to deserve each other. If they aren't "telling the truth" as you claim, then nothing to date here suggests you have any greater affinity with the truth either.
  10. And the fact that it annoys you is why you should not be interfering. You are not objective and you are not helping here. For all you know, at the time of the incident she was shopping in Sainsbury's. You have only her word for what happened, and your belief in her word is irrelevant. You keep confusing your beliefs and opinions with facts - the same "facts" are open to a range of other interpretations, and absolutely everything that you and she says that it isn't necessary to be said may cast doubt on her version of events. That's the whole point of saying little and keep it simple - not elaborate at will and don't stop talking! The thing is, as we've said before, the employer doesn't need evidence to the standard that a court of law does. They only need a reasonable belief of wrong doing in order to dismiss her, and the more you say the more you are giving them that. And it does not matter whether she agreed that you send the letter or not. You have no legal authority to act on her behalf in this matter. And nobody should have been saying anything. Please don't say or do anything else to her employer. Not now and not ever. If something needs saying it's her that needs to say it. You can help compose, but you are not her.
  11. Exactly how does this equate to the advice of sit back and don't do anything? No you don't and can't add it to the disciplinary - and you had no right to write on your wife's behalf about anything. You could have made things worse. What exactly have you said to them? You asked - and were told - that you have no right to represent her. That's in any capacity. They are absolutely right that they shouldn't communicate with you at all. And you should not have written anything, no matter who signed it (and it should never have been you) before the disciplinary meeting. I'm going to say this again - you were not there, your information is second hand and miles off being objective, and you cannot actually say that anything your wife has told you is true! You shouldn't be interfering and you certainly shouldn't be potentially handing them ammunition to make your wife's position worse than it already is.
  12. Look up the definition of sanction. And there is nothing in law that says either of these things. You have been told what the law says.
  13. Really? Is that true? Because the link embedded in the quote takes you to a private company who charge you for "union representation". Shocking that ACAS promote such companies. Oh, well they don't.... https://www.workplace-representation.co.uk - a private company not ACAS
  14. So you are now ignoring all the advice given here and by (your?) union in favour of inaccurate advice given by ambulance chasers? This is going to end badly.
  15. You had no right to be accompanied. That right only accrues to a disciplinary or grievance hearing - this is neither. And beyond that, sorry, but I give up. You aren't hearing what is said, so you need to go your own way since that is what you want to do.
  • Create New...