Opinions Please

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I would like some opinions on the following problem.

 

 

A lady in her 60s received a letter on Monday morning from her employer, stating that she had been

summarily dismissed for " gross misconduct", the employer is a franchisee for a convenience store chain the letter was from a manager.

 

 

The reason for dismissal being stated as " failing to recognise a test purchase re sale of alcohol" test carried on the previous Saturday by TS and Police"

 

 

Others (younger) counter staff have failed such tests and have been " given a second chance".

 

 

There has been absolutely no discussion with the manager or the franchisee CAB have concluded this dismissal is unfair.

 

 

I have my own opinion on this but would appreciate all views.

 

 

Brig.

[Consumer dude]

How long has she worked at the job and was she given any right to appeal..

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

How long has she worked at the job and was she given any right to appeal..

Over 7 years, no verbal communication whatsoever just the letter.

[honeybee13]

Have you seen this lady's employment contract, Brig? I'm not saying it's vital, but it might help the guys. They'll tell you.

 

HB

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Have you seen this lady's employment contract, Brig? I'm not saying it's vital, but it might help the guys. They'll tell you.

 

HB

Morning HB,

 

 

This employer when the franchise was sold to another company, (Premier to Budgens) Budgens regional manager brought " new" contracts for all employees but the franchise took these and only certain people were given copies, this lady was not.

[steampowered]

My reaction is that, assuming this was an isolated event, the gross misconduct charge sounds a bit excessive. I'd be thinking very hard about bringing an unfair dismissal claim in the employment tribunal. Please note the very strict deadline of three-months-minus-one-day to file a claim.

 

I am a little unsure what 'failing to recognise a test purchase' means? If it means she sold alcohol to minors without checking their ID, gross misconduct may be fair enough. If it means something else then I am not sure how it could be misconduct, since presumably the idea of the tests is that they are supposed to be anonymous and random.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Thank you steampowered, this is my thoughts as well.

 

 

The test was sale of alcohol under the "think 25" scheme what is not clear is if the " purchaser" was over 18, it is on the failure to challenge that the dismissal was made.

 

 

The absence of the employment contract ( with held by the franchisee) make it difficult as we cannot know if the process so far is contained within the contract.#

 

 

Brig.

[steampowered]

I think it is difficult to know without more background about the sale. It can be very difficult to tell if someone is over 25, so if the person was 24 perhaps very difficult to justify a misconduct charge. However if alcohol was sold to someone under 18 that is a different matter and perhaps could justify gross misconduct.

[Emmzzi]

Even for GMC dismissal procedure must be followed - investigation, invitation to attend, right to be accompanied, all the usual.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

My feelings too, the employer has "reputation" for being unreasonable I'm told.

[Grotesque]

Yes this is no longer a time where people can just be told to empty their desks into a bin bag and be summarily dismissed. They can be summarily suspended but only, as MZ says, as part of a wider process. And frankly, if it is a big, supposedly 'reputable' employer, that better be the ACAS disciplinary code or similar or they stand little chance of success at an ET.