Fixed term contract problems

[assisted blonde]

Well I can see that you were summarily dismissed before the end of the contract and as such it was a pos breach of contract and you should be paid until the end of it. But even though you were a permanent member of staff it was for a fixed term therefore the option was always not to extend your contract and so I cannot see how you can make a claim based on being out of work for 2 months (after the time of the fixed term contract would have ended) or the fact that you earning less money.

I would assume that the reason the temp is still there is that they only need to be there while the work is there and it is far easier for an employer to stop employing a temp when they dont need them.

I cant predict what the ET will do but I assume they will make an award for the dismissal procedures not being followed correctly but I cant see where else you would be able to claim compensation, as you are in no worse aposition now than you would have been had the company followed the correct proceedure in ending your contract.

[recompense41]

I don't follow your reasoning, ending a fixed term contract is still a dismissal in law and you have the right to not be unfairly dismissed. If the work was still there (which it clearly is as the temp is still there several months later) then there was no reason not to extend or renew my contract. If it is 'easier for an employer to stop employing a temp' then why didn't they do so and not dismiss me in the first place! When I queried this with my employer at the time they said the temp would be going in a week or two anyway, which was clearly a lie. They also failed to give me a written statement of reasons for my dismissal. On the direct gov website it also states: 'You are also protected from being selected for redundancy because you are a fixed-term employee, unless your employer can 'objectively justify' the choice.' This clearly didn't happen.

 

I believe I have a very strong case and I'm going to propose a counter offer that reflects this. The fact they've made an offer at the grievance stage and another offer now show they think I have a case.

 

R

Edited April 7, 2012 by recompense41
typo

[becky2585]

Assisted blonde is actually right.

 

I ran a case last year where a fixed term contract was terminated after 15 months instead of 18. The losses were limited to the end of the fixed term and not beyond.

[recompense41]

If that is the case then why are they aleady offering more than that amount?

[becky2585]

I have no idea, but you can't claim standard unfair dismissal so perhaps they're settling on a commercial basis, i.e. the duration of the contract plus part of their legal fees. You'd also get a basic award.

 

From what you've said, it sounds like you've been offered a good deal and you'd be mad not to take it. You could well end up with a costs award against you if you refuse a reasonable offer and are awarded less at a remedies hearing, should the respondent choose to apply for costs (if they are legally represented).

[recompense41]

I appreciate your comments but I'm going to reply with a reasonble counter offer and see what happens. I was treated appallingly and I'm not going to give up lightly.

[becky2585]

Well best of luck in achieving a settlement! I'd really recommend doing this as I'm not sure you'll get much from an ET, if you win at all.

[assisted blonde]

Do what you feel is best, but ET's are there not just there to give you mega bucks, I really think you are missing my point, it may not be a legal point but it is a common sense one. You had a 1 yr fixed term contract, you accepted it so you knew that it could end at the end of 1 year, it did, it may not have been handled correctly (co's mistake) but they are addressing this and making you an offer which seems quite generous, an ET will not recompense you for the fact that your new job pays less than the old one. The ET may also make an award for less than you have been offered and you will have costs to consider.

At the end of the day it is up to the employer if he extends a fixed term contract or continues to employ a temp, it is his business and he can to a certain extent employ who he wants, as for being treated less favourably than the temp I cant see it, the temp still has a job but a temp job where they could be finished at any time, your fixed term contract has ended, you were only a permanent employee for the duration of it, 1 year.

For whatever reason your ex employer didnt want to retain you after 1 year whether or not there was work there or not, it could be that they didnt want to go over the year as it gives the employee more rights, it may be that they just prefered the temps personality to yours I dont know but it is their decision.

Look at it like this you were given notice that your contract would not be extended so you were going in a month anyway, if your employer had just let that run then you wouldnt be able to claim anything !

Edited April 7, 2012 by assisted blonde

[recompense41]

I'm not prepared to continue arguing this. I'm not out for mega bucks as you put it, just justice. They didn't let it run, they treated me unfairly, I raised an appeal as a result of which they dismissed me instantly, hence I have a claim for automatic unfair dismissal. End of discussion. If you can't be constructive don't post!

[assisted blonde]

Actually I thought I was being constructive, just because it isnt what you want to hear dont get stroppy. As a Law graduate I am expected to see all sides of an argument not just one and that is what I was trying to do, as I really cant see what you are hoping for, this is a forum for discussions as well as opinions and sometimes a point is raised that makes you look at a situation in a different way.

Could I suggest that it may be your attitude that made the employer decide to not extend your contract?

[recompense41]

I am not getting stroppy, just stating my point. First you insinuate I am out for mega bucks and then you cast aspersions on my character. I would appreciate an apology.

Edited April 7, 2012 by recompense41
typo

[becky2585]

I'm not prepared to continue arguing this. I'm not out for mega bucks as you put it, just justice. They didn't let it run, they treated me unfairly, I raised an appeal as a result of which they dismissed me instantly, hence I have a claim for automatic unfair dismissal. End of discussion. If you can't be constructive don't post!

 

No, you don't have a claim for automatically unfair dismissal. That's a separate point of law.

 

I think you're also blurring the lines here between "unfair" and " unlawful" treatment.

 

I think Assisted Blonde has been constructive, and helpful, on this thread. The fact that you don't like what has been posted doesn't alter the fact that the law doesn't work to your advantage in this situation.

[recompense41]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm perfectly happy for people to disagree and offer alternative points of view in a constructive manner, but I am not happy with assisted blonde casting aspersions on my character. It is totally uncalled for. I had very good appraisals while at the company including comments on how I got on well with the team. I also do not like the insinuation that I'm out for mega bucks. Someone with legal training I would have thought would stick to the facts.

[becky2585]

What are you hoping to achieve from this situation?

[recompense41]

Justice. A reasonable settlement from my former employer, so that a line can be drawn under it and I can move on. It's not just about money either; the company needs to realise they cannot treat employees in such a shoddy manner. I would hope the outcome is they improve in their dealings with current and future employees.

[becky2585]

Ah, well it appears you've been offered a reasonable settlement, so anything from here on in should be viewed as a bonus.

[recompense41]

If I felt they had offered a reasonable amount given the circumstances of the case, i would have accepted and not be coming back with a counter proposal.

[assisted blonde]

ET's are not just there to give someone mega bucks (no insinuation just a general comment) as for stroppy if "you cant be constructive dont post,! sorry if you dont like the word stroppy,

As for my comment about it may be your attitude I will retract that and say" maybe they just dont like you and would prefer to employ someone" else is that better?

I believe that the courts ET's etc are there to help the vulnerable and those who have been badly treated and that there are too many people these days who take litigation as the first option rather than the last.

if more people compramised, discussed etc without going to the Law it would enable those who have no other option to recieve a faster and in my opinion better service.

I will support anyone who has a good case I just dont think you have, you have been offered a payment that would appear to recompense you up until the end of your contract so taking it to an ET would suggest that you are hoping for more.

It could well be decided that as your ex employer did wrong but have offered to recompense you for their mistake there is not a lot more the ET can do, if they rule that the employer was wrong so what, if that is their way of doing business it wont change that, and if they mishandled the situation in your case and have realised it then they may not do it in the future to anyone else, an ET ruling is unlikly to influence either way.

I fail to see just what this is about if it isnt about trying to get more money out of them.

As you do seem to mention earning 3k less in your new job quite a bit and I really dont think an ET would consider that a reason for a larger offer.

[recompense41]

I haven't taken this action lightly. I tried to reach a settlement with them through the normal grievance procedure first. I have been polite and cooperative with them in negotiations but I will pursue it until I feel I have achieved justice. I would hope that an agreement can be reached wihout it proceeding to a hearing.

 

if the claim is limited to the expiry of the fixed term contract what about other fixed term cases, for example

Lancaster University was ordered to pay 60 days' salary to a group of up to 30 employees whose fixed-term contracts were not renewed, after an employment tribunal said that this amounted to dismissal.

[becky2585]

The facts in that case were substantially different. The 60 days pay was punitive damages in the form of a protective award for not consulting with its staff over the requisite period required when an employer makes 20 or more employees redundant in a period under 90 days. That's not compensation which is open to you.

[recompense41]

I appreciate the facts of the case are different, but even when there are fewer than 20 employees made redundant there should be a consultation prior to dismisssal. This did not happen in my case.

[assisted blonde]

But you werent made redundant

[recompense41]

It states on several employment sites: 'Where a member of fixed-term staff is dismissed because the requirements for employees to carry out work of a particular kind have ceased or diminished then the dismissal will be for reason of redundancy.' You could argue those employees at the university weren't made redundant; their fixed term contracts were not renewed.

[becky2585]

And with under 12 months service, they aren't legally required to consult with you.

[recompense41]

Please quote the relevant law stating that.