I thought it was 12 months, but i obviously will go by you knowledge. If he is from an agency, hasn't got a hope in hell. If he is perm though should be covered by minimum standards, which he will need to research. A lot of managers/bosses do not know employment law, they are not trained to know, that is HR's job. Hence if they do not seek guidance from HR or have a poor HR department then they risk falling foul at a tribunal. Most tribunal's are lost by employers not because they were not right in their reasoning but because they did not dot the i's and cross the t's.
Ok. He should be covered by minimum standards. However, if you call someone inappropriate names in the workplace, the company risks losing any potential claim at a tribunal by a claimant. Even calling an employee by the wrong name and entering it on to rota's will lose you a tribunal claim....it really is that silly
You're talking to an ex Union rep off a very large warehouse, when I was in surrey. Times have changed though. This **** malarky will see the end off him. But the **** has ****ed himself. How can he work. Hell also be in a warning
I'd be surprised if they can just fire him like that. I've fired a few people. It was always more complicated than I'd wanted it to be and we had to go through a process. One of them was even having his salary paid for by his old man (the lad didn't know) but we still had to follow correct procedure.
Sounds all a bit silly to me, personally i'd say fook off and behave yourselves or go home with no pay. He shouldn't be calling him a **** but also the other guy shouldn't be retaliating then complaining about it. Plus it's one word against another unless someone turned grass.
Acting reasonably Even if you have a fair reason, the dismissal is only fair if you also act reasonably during the dismissal and disciplinary process. There’s no legal definition of ‘reasonableness’, but if you’re taken to an employment or industrial tribunal they would consider whether you: genuinely believed that the reason was fair carried out proper investigations where appropriate followed the relevant procedures told the employee why they were being considered for dismissal and listened to their views (in Northern Ireland, the employer must do this in writing) allowed the employee to be accompanied at disciplinary/dismissal hearings gave the employee the chance to appeal Reasonableness might also depend on whether the employee could be expected to understand the consequences of their behaviour. ^^^ @Commachio if they didn't follow that, then they risk losing a tribunal. I will repeat what i said earlier, a lot of managers/bosses do not know the law, do not assume they do because they hold such as position, this is where most of them fall foul at a tribunal. Hence why you have a HR department.
If he’d been there less than 2 years they can sack him without a hearing it they want to, he has no real rights, and couldn’t take it to tribunal. That said, they should have followed a protocol and had a discip hearing imo, but legally they’re not forced to. The change in employment rights going from 12 to 24 months was slid in a few years back btw. It was 2 years in the Thatcher day’s, then it went back to one, and now they’ve bumped it back to 2.
Yeah i saw Saf's comment previous. I never even realised it had gone back to two years, i still thought it was 12 months!
A lot of people don’t tbf, there’s been a number of significant changes made to employment law that people aren’t generally aware of. Tribunals being one btw, as all of that was altered as well without anyone really seeming to notice!
