Long term casual worker and sending of P45

[sangie5952]

Employment law 101 - irrespective of any contractual status, employment during the first month can be terminated without notice. For any reason that does not fall within the limited exceptions.

[sangie5952]

It is real. I am currently negotiating with my employer. I would like to prove him that he is wrong and to convince him to pay me the remainder of the two weeks or better to take me back and it is why I need advice from your.

 

I think that my thread raises interesting issues about employment law

 

He is right. You are wrong. And no it doesn't.

[sangie5952]

The terms of zero hours contracts are actually quite well determined in law. This is, however, a red herring. Regardless of ANY type of contract, an employer has the right to dismiss with immediate effect in the first month WHATEVER the offered contract consists of. That has nothing at all to do with unfair dismissal. It has to do with the law. The OP may not like the law, but they aren't going to change it.

 

However, if it is the case that they cannot manage to last more than a day or two in a job, then they perhaps need to address greater concerns. Such as what is wrong with their performance.

[sangie5952]

She will not be providing you with information which is freely available anywhere on the internet

because she is not interested in helping you with your homework.

 

She is simply ensuring that other readers are not lead astray by ridiculous claims like "you won the last one but can't tell anyone how".

 

What you think there should be has no relevance in law.

 

I repeat - if, and I sincerely doubt this,

there is any veracity at all in your accounts,

your problem is not employment law.

 

It is why you are always being finished within days.

[sangie5952]

1.

You say that the information is available in the Internet but I have looked for it but I did not find it. So it will be good if you or someone else provide it to me. Until this has been done I carry on thinking that the one month service concerns only the issue of whether or not the employer has to give at least one week notice

 

2.

I did not win last case nor I lost it but all this is confidential

 

3.

If I am always finished within days as you say maybe it is because there is ‘a difference’ between me and the others and I am not responsible for this I born like this but this is also confidential.

 

4.

More importantly the first part of my thread is about the issue of whether or not an employer needs to have in the zero hours contract a clause which says that he reserves the right to withdraw any offer of work if he wants to withdraw an offer of work even if it has already been accepted by the casual worker.

 

However another issue comes before to which I make reference in the second part of my thread which is about the issue of ‘offer’ and of ‘acceptance’. For the reason that it is important to know what has exactly been offered to me by my employer and has been accepted by me? Is it one hour of work, one day of work or two weeks of work i.e. the entire project because if it is one hour or one day of work my employer could not be in breach of contract because he removed me from the project at the end of the first day ?

 

1. If you are unable to use Google then you are unable to construct a legal argument. Thinking something doesn't make it true.

 

2. If you didn't win it you lost it.

 

3. If you were born to lose jobs within hours of starting then that is an odd genetic abnormality. Could you provide a link to this condition? Otherwise, and I see the evidence over these two threads, the fact is that it is actually your problem that you cannot accept what others tell you. It is a problem if you keep losing jobs, and it is certainly your problem and no one else's.

 

4. You have been given the answer several times. You simply don't want to accept it so you continue to ask the same question.

[sangie5952]

This is my final response because I am wasting my time here.

 

The only person who thinks there are ANY legal issues here is you. There are NO legal issues. Nobody thinks you have any less rights. After one day in work NOBODY has the rights you are attempting to claim.

 

Finally, please do not imply that I am being discriminatory. You are the person who said that you were born with the differences that mean you cannot hold down a job. I merely asked what condition people are born with that means that they cannot hold down a job. Because I do not know of one.

 

Final response - your problem is not legal issues. Your problem is that you keep losing your job. That is what you need to address. You cannot make the world agree with you just because you think it should - here or in a job. Lose the attitude or you will never hold down employment.

[sangie5952]

I think that simply you are not able to reply to the legal issues raised by my thread but this is not a problem I invite you simply to carry on trying to find a reply to these legal issues

 

How difficult is this to understand? Every single person had told you the same thing. THERE ARE NO LEGAL ISSUES. There is nothing to say because you refuse to accept this no matter what anyone says. You have wasted a lot of good people's time here and elsewhere. You are not cleverer than everyone else. You are simply blinder than than everyone else. It would appear that you are either very stupid, or you are deliberately baiting people by reprising the same useless phrases over and over again to see how long you can keep this going for. We don't need testing. We know what we are talking about. We can hold down employment for considerably longer than two days. Something you seem to find impossible to do. Does it make you feel big and important to act like some kind of guru and insult people by pretending they are stupid children who need teaching by you? Because here's a shock for you. You are acting like a pathetic infant who had been told they can't have more sweets. So I "invite" you to take a hike... Nobody here believes you. Nobody thinks you are clever. There must be another site you could go and annoy?

[sangie5952]

I agree with you and so I won't be correcting anything,

including the fact that there is no real point in addressing anything to the OP.

 

 

But happy to discuss anything you like!

 

 

Personally, I think it's getting cold, don't you?

[sangie5952]

And it begins....

 

You have your answer.

[sangie5952]

It is probably here so that people don't waste a lot of time.

 

You seem to spend a lot of time arguing with everyone.

 

 

In your employment, here, in your new course...

You might want to think about reflecting on why that is.

 

This matter is between you and the educational institution.

Look at whatever contract you may have with them.

That's all there is.

[sangie5952]

your argument is that you would like three people to tell you "No" rather than two?

 

I am going to lay bets that the policy, whatever is is, states that the process NORMALLY (or some such word) operates on three stages.

It is exceptional that any policy doesn't have some form of conditional clause.

Just like NORMALLY disciplinary processes start at a low level and proceed to more serious ones

- but the employer can slip up to more serious stages of outcomes if they wish to.

 

Emmzzi is correct that you are posting in the wrong place,

but regardless of that, some really good advice is to pack it in now.

 

 

You appear to spend far too much of your time up to your ears in arguments with services and employers.

When this is a repeated feature of someone's life, it suggests that self examination will be more productive than complaints.