possibly unfairly dismissed during training period of a job, advice?

[becky2585]

I think that you have been treated completely unfairly - and in breach of contract.

 

I think that you have a basis for claiming at least the value of the notice period which you should have been given. That may only be 7 days - but check it out.

I would waste no time.

Assemble any medical evidence you have - then write to the company and tell them how much you want and that you want it within 7 days or you will sue. Then sue. Don't make the threat unless you intend to carry it out.

 

If you do sue, I would claim for the notice period - plus something for the lost opportunity. You were on a training contract and so you had invested yourself in some chance of future gain.

I don't know what kind of job you were training for but I would suggest a claim for your notice period plus, damages for lost opportunity not exceeding, say, £300.

 

You have a very high chance of winning. IN fact your chances of winning the notice period will be over 95%.

I think that any company which treats employees - especially those without employment rights like this are bullies and they deserve everything they get.

Don't sign any confidentiality agreements - and when you win, come here and post up who they are so that they can enjoy their shame.

Let us know if you want a hand drafting documents.

 

Don't worry about the size of the claim. It is the size of the bully which interests us.,

 

Whoa, hold on there!

 

You can't claim loss of chance here, so I'd lose that idea straight away.

 

There's nothing in the OP that indicates a breach of contract claim either. If we are working on statutory notice periods - that is zero!! So no claim there either.

 

The only way there would be a claim is if there is contractual notice due. A contract would need to be signed for that. If the assignment was temporary, in my experience with recruitment, it will be on statutory notice in any event. If its permanent and there's a contractual provision for notice (which again, in my experience only kicks in after the training or probationary period is complete) then there could be a wrongful dismissal claim.

[becky2585]

Bank Fodder, I'm sure you mean well, but you're giving poor and incorrect advice to the OP.

[becky2585]

Just to be a little clearer on my previous posts - loss of chance is a common law principle whereby if a Court is unable to reach a sufficiently clear view on what would have happened "but for" a breach of contract, it can award damages. Arguably, there hasn't been a breach here at all, but even if there was, I'm not sure how any loss can be argued for lack of training alone - that would only count for training with the employer and would not extend to training in alternative employment, so I don't see any loss there which can be quantified. If you look into the case law on this point, such claims are rarely, if ever, successful - and usually they are only successful in professional negligence claims, for example if due to poor representation, a Claimant lost a case and sued the solicitor acting for professional negligence. It's rarey, if ever, found in employment law cases.

 

You also seem to be confusing common law contractual principles with the statutory rights of employees - the two are far different. Take for example the employment contract - there doesn't have to be offer, acceptance, consideration and intention to create legal relations as there would be with traditional contractual relationships - the contract is automatically formed at the start of the employment relationship, whether written or otherwise. The fact that statutory rights are enshrined are key here. The statutory right here, which applies to agency workers and not just employees, is to a minimum period of notice upon termination of employment. This is stipulated in S86 Employment Rights Act 1996 - which, as previously indicated, is zero in this case because there is less than one month's employment. If there is a contractual provision to a higher notice period, this takes precedent and is then in the realm of wrongful dismissal damages based on breach of contract. You can't realistically seek to imply a greater notice period after merely a few days in employment when it is already dictated by statute and there are no extenuating circumstances. It's entirely misconceived to indicate otherwise.

 

The other point of note is that loss of chance is claimed under tortious, not contractual, principles.

[becky2585]

The point is, if you waste the Tribunals time with misconceived claims that they have no jurisdiction to rule on, you could end up with costs awarded against you far in excess of the value of the claim itself, which is very low value.

 

Testing boundaries doesn't work at this level - the courts are only permitted to apply the law as it stands. If you want to start setting precedents, that involves then going to EAT or Court of Appeal level, which isn't worth doing with a claim such as this!

 

By the same logic, what's to stop a claimant trying to bring a claim under Equality Act provisions because theyre overweight or have ginger hair?! They'll never win because they have no legal foundation.