Hi All
Does anyone know about Employment Law, (unfair dismissal) one year ago my partner had breast cancer, after the operation she was of work for 3mth, and then returning back to work.
This year she had to go back for reconstruction so she was off work for three weeks, she goes back to work on Monday and gets told Wednesday that her job hours will have to be cut to 2 days a week or redundancy, has we have managed with out you, and we need to cut back on spending.
My partner is a full time secretary and there is a part time secretary which works three days week When my parent first when for the job she was told the the part timer would be retiring she is now 68 and looks like she has no intentions of retireing
The reason that they have managed is that the office staff didn’t past their workload to the P/T because she in total U/S and old fashioned in her work,
She gets away with it as she has been there scene the firm started back in the 50-60’s and is part of the woodwork.
My way of thinking would have been cut the P/timers hour’s down to 2 day or ask her if she would like to retirer.
We have taken this to solicitor, and are waiting some answers
If you think there is a case would you drop a replay thanks
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Unfair Dismissal Employment Law
Quote by andytvw
Hi All
Does anyone know about Employment Law, (unfair dismissal) one year ago my partner had breast cancer, after the operation she was of work for 3mth, and then returning back to work.
This year she had to go back for reconstruction so she was off work for three weeks, she goes back to work on Monday and gets told Wednesday that her job hours will have to be cut to 2 days a week or redundancy, has we have managed with out you, and we need to cut back on spending.
My partner is a full time secretary and there is a part time secretary which works three days week When my parent first when for the job she was told the the part timer would be retiring she is now 68 and looks like she has no intentions of retireing
The reason that they have managed is that the office staff didn’t past their workload to the P/T because she in total U/S and old fashioned in her work,
She gets away with it as she has been there scene the firm started back in the 50-60’s and is part of the woodwork.
My way of thinking would have been cut the P/timers hour’s down to 2 day or ask her if she would like to retirer.
We have taken this to solicitor, and are waiting some answers
If you think there is a case would you drop a replay thanks
If you are a union member call them, they will give you their interpretation of the law, call ACAS onXXXXXXXXXXXXX, they will give you their interpretation of the law.
Whose helpline numbers can be found . Can I do that one?
Hope that helps.
The law is quite stongly in her favour here because the comapny has to follow certain processes before they make someone redundant:
1. The moment they knew her job was at risk they should have told her that she might be affected.
2. Consultation period. This should be an interactive process where both parties try to find alternative jobs within the company - such as removing the P/T employee or retraining her for a different job.
3. Staff selection. There should be a pool of people who are considered - part timers as well. To remove someone simply because they've served less time is not always the right thing to do - the company should be able to prove that it wasn't just one person who decided the outcome that if they do remove the 'newest' - an appeal board wouldn't like that descision to be made by only one person.
That's some of the basics - it might be worth checking your insurance policy (you never know, you might have legal cover in there). A call in to the CAB is always a good idea as well.
Good luck - hope it works out okay, but be careful not to expect a quick result and remember that even if she does get to stay, she probably won't be made too welcome.
1. The moment they knew her job was at risk they should have told her that she might be affected.
2. Consultation period. This should be an interactive process where both parties try to find alternative jobs within the company - such as removing the P/T employee or retraining her for a different job.
3. Staff selection. There should be a pool of people who are considered - part timers as well. To remove someone simply because they've served less time is not always the right thing to do - the company should be able to prove that it wasn't just one person who decided the outcome that if they do remove the 'newest' - an appeal board wouldn't like that descision to be made by only one person.
That's some of the basics - it might be worth checking your insurance policy (you never know, you might have legal cover in there). A call in to the CAB is always a good idea as well.
Good luck - hope it works out okay, but be careful not to expect a quick result and remember that even if she does get to stay, she probably won't be made too welcome.
If the company presents her with a redundancy package then she can either accept that or pursue a case on her own. She could claim constructive dismissal and/or unfair dismissal. Any kind of claim would result in a long term settlement and could escalate beyond common sense. So there would need to be very serious reasons for going into this, eg discrimination, victimisation etc.
Have a look at the redundancy offer before getting into the heavy stuff. It may be more than the basic anyway. So you would gain nothing more by getting into a row.
Have a look at the redundancy offer before getting into the heavy stuff. It may be more than the basic anyway. So you would gain nothing more by getting into a row.
If your partner is in a union, get in touch with them asap, if she isn't but YOU are, get in touch with your union, as legal cover for you can sometimes be used to represent your partner too....
In any event , make sure you take notes of everything, phone calls, conversations, letters. Either from the company or anything to do with you partners medical history, anything, you will have a better chance if you can prove things rather than relying on your partners "say-so"...
Good Luck...
In any event , make sure you take notes of everything, phone calls, conversations, letters. Either from the company or anything to do with you partners medical history, anything, you will have a better chance if you can prove things rather than relying on your partners "say-so"...
Good Luck...
if she has a contract they cannot cut back her hours cause she has been off for illness so long as she had handed in a sick note, as for making her redundant well they can do that 2 anyone sorry to say that if she has had time off a lot they may put her at the top of the list, bit heartless in light of why she has been off tho
Sex God
As with all these things, it kinda depends on which side of the fence it's being viewed from.
Cost saving is a very legitimate reason for redundancy, cos all said and done, most companies exist to make a profit from their activities and controlling spending is a crucial part of making that happen.
The selection of people for redundancy, is generally the greyest area in the process and in all honesty the easiest to fudge. It's already been pointed out that a person needs to be put 'at risk' intially and then a reasonable time set aside for a consultation period, wherby both the company and the 'at risk' person, can try and work out any alternatives to redundancy. This is all part of the process and kinda covers the necessary formalities.
If the employing company have done their job right, then they would have worked up a matix of some sort, where they can clearly demonstrate the criteria used in the selection process. This matrix will generally look at things , Skills, Attitudes, time and attendance, past performance, future prospects, length of service and any number of other blah blah's they wanna throw in. These can be scored / rated as seems fit and then the selection can be made on the results.
Having said all that, there are many different methods for selection and provided that the method can be shown to be fair then it's pretty much o.k.
The reality is that if the selectors, have got their head screwed on, it isn't hard to make whatever name they want to float to the top, float there and still demonstrate that things were done fairly. It isn't hard to enter consultation periods and find no workable alternative to redundancy even if it's screaming in yer face.
What I'm trying to say is go ahead and have a bit of a battle, just don't expect it to be as black and white as you might see it.
......and now for the blunt bit......
I can't possibly comment on your own situation with specifics, but I wouldn't mind betting that time and attendance will play a part in the selection and if someone has had a lumpy amount of time off and there is the prospect of more lengthy abscences in the future, then that will play a part, cos lets face it an employee that isn't at work, isn't very effective. That seems a particularly harsh thing to say and isn't meant to be, but it is honest, just worded bluntly to cut down on reading and typing time.
I know a lot of companies bend over backwards to assist and accomadate illness and problems that affect the workforce, my own included, but a cart load are down to the bone these days and any abscence has a much bigger effect and if you just flip the coin for a bit, sit the other side of the desk and ask who would you rather have.....
Cost saving is a very legitimate reason for redundancy, cos all said and done, most companies exist to make a profit from their activities and controlling spending is a crucial part of making that happen.
The selection of people for redundancy, is generally the greyest area in the process and in all honesty the easiest to fudge. It's already been pointed out that a person needs to be put 'at risk' intially and then a reasonable time set aside for a consultation period, wherby both the company and the 'at risk' person, can try and work out any alternatives to redundancy. This is all part of the process and kinda covers the necessary formalities.
If the employing company have done their job right, then they would have worked up a matix of some sort, where they can clearly demonstrate the criteria used in the selection process. This matrix will generally look at things , Skills, Attitudes, time and attendance, past performance, future prospects, length of service and any number of other blah blah's they wanna throw in. These can be scored / rated as seems fit and then the selection can be made on the results.
Having said all that, there are many different methods for selection and provided that the method can be shown to be fair then it's pretty much o.k.
The reality is that if the selectors, have got their head screwed on, it isn't hard to make whatever name they want to float to the top, float there and still demonstrate that things were done fairly. It isn't hard to enter consultation periods and find no workable alternative to redundancy even if it's screaming in yer face.
What I'm trying to say is go ahead and have a bit of a battle, just don't expect it to be as black and white as you might see it.
......and now for the blunt bit......
I can't possibly comment on your own situation with specifics, but I wouldn't mind betting that time and attendance will play a part in the selection and if someone has had a lumpy amount of time off and there is the prospect of more lengthy abscences in the future, then that will play a part, cos lets face it an employee that isn't at work, isn't very effective. That seems a particularly harsh thing to say and isn't meant to be, but it is honest, just worded bluntly to cut down on reading and typing time.
I know a lot of companies bend over backwards to assist and accomadate illness and problems that affect the workforce, my own included, but a cart load are down to the bone these days and any abscence has a much bigger effect and if you just flip the coin for a bit, sit the other side of the desk and ask who would you rather have.....
Quote by davej
As with all these things, it kinda depends on which side of the fence it's being viewed from.
Cost saving is a very legitimate reason for redundancy, cos all said and done, most companies exist to make a profit from their activities and controlling spending is a crucial part of making that happen.
The selection of people for redundancy, is generally the greyest area in the process and in all honesty the easiest to fudge. It's already been pointed out that a person needs to be put 'at risk' intially and then a reasonable time set aside for a consultation period, wherby both the company and the 'at risk' person, can try and work out any alternatives to redundancy. This is all part of the process and kinda covers the necessary formalities.
If the employing company have done their job right, then they would have worked up a matix of some sort, where they can clearly demonstrate the criteria used in the selection process. This matrix will generally look at things , Skills, Attitudes, time and attendance, past performance, future prospects, length of service and any number of other blah blah's they wanna throw in. These can be scored / rated as seems fit and then the selection can be made on the results.
Having said all that, there are many different methods for selection and provided that the method can be shown to be fair then it's pretty much o.k.
The reality is that if the selectors, have got their head screwed on, it isn't hard to make whatever name they want to float to the top, float there and still demonstrate that things were done fairly. It isn't hard to enter consultation periods and find no workable alternative to redundancy even if it's screaming in yer face.
What I'm trying to say is go ahead and have a bit of a battle, just don't expect it to be as black and white as you might see it.
......and now for the blunt bit......
I can't possibly comment on your own situation with specifics, but I wouldn't mind betting that time and attendance will play a part in the selection and if someone has had a lumpy amount of time off and there is the prospect of more lengthy abscences in the future, then that will play a part, cos lets face it an employee that isn't at work, isn't very effective. That seems a particularly harsh thing to say and isn't meant to be, but it is honest, just worded bluntly to cut down on reading and typing time.
I know a lot of companies bend over backwards to assist and accomadate illness and problems that affect the workforce, my own included, but a cart load are down to the bone these days and any abscence has a much bigger effect and if you just flip the coin for a bit, sit the other side of the desk and ask who would you rather have.....
As an employer I agree with a lot of what davej has to say however, there is a legal requirement to carry out a fair and proper consultation process prior to any redundancies.
Durring this process she has the right to elect a fellow member of staff to be present at any meetings, she also have the right to put together some sort of business plan justifying her employment and she can ask for a breakdown of why they chose her.
The normal durration of a consultation period is normaly 30 days.
In short, they may have good reason to choose your wife as stated by davej, but if they dont follow proper procedure then they have commited a breech and she may have recourse at a tribunal.
One other importanat point to bear in mind is that you have 90 days to lodge you complaint with the Tribunal, after that you are timed barred.
I recommend you speak to a solicitor and get sound advice.
Good Luck !
I think (know) that if the selection to cut your partners hours was made as a result of her illness - cancer is covered by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The Act applies to any person with cancer from the first day of diagnosis.
Yes the company can run a cost cutting exercise - but...... if more than one person does the role that is effected in the reduction of hours - they need to demonstrate 'fair' selection. Your partner is entitled to be told what the selection criteria was (keep your fingers crossed that they say it was her illness!). She should also be given the opportunity to propose an alternative suggestion to avoid the need for redundancy - that is what the consultation period is for.
They need to confirm their discussion in writing - if your partner does not agree with what they put - challenge it in writing without delay.
There are plenty of 'no win - no fee' solicitors that will grab this case if they imply her illness is the reason for their selection.
Yes the company can run a cost cutting exercise - but...... if more than one person does the role that is effected in the reduction of hours - they need to demonstrate 'fair' selection. Your partner is entitled to be told what the selection criteria was (keep your fingers crossed that they say it was her illness!). She should also be given the opportunity to propose an alternative suggestion to avoid the need for redundancy - that is what the consultation period is for.
They need to confirm their discussion in writing - if your partner does not agree with what they put - challenge it in writing without delay.
There are plenty of 'no win - no fee' solicitors that will grab this case if they imply her illness is the reason for their selection.
Quote by davej
I can't possibly comment on your own situation with specifics, but I wouldn't mind betting that time and attendance will play a part in the selection and if someone has had a lumpy amount of time off and there is the prospect of more lengthy abscences in the future, then that will play a part, cos lets face it an employee that isn't at work, isn't very effective.
Deep-joy if they do say this - as the time-off was as a result of cancer she will be protected by the DDA 1995. It will not be deemed fair selection as they are in breach of an ACT. The ACT also states it is not the employee or prospective employees responsibility to provethis is what they did (but need to have reason to suspect)- it is the employers responsibiliity toprove they did not breach the ACT.
Quote by PoloLady
Deep-joy if they do say this - as the time-off was as a result of cancer she will be protected by the DDA 1995. It will not be deemed fair selection as they are in breach of an ACT. The ACT also states it is not the employee or prospective employees responsibility to prove this is what they did (but need to have reason to suspect)- it is the employers responsibiliity to prove they did not breach the ACT.
Get in touch with the DRC (Disability Rights Commission).
You better not hang about doing so.
Claims under the Disability Discrimination Act are time limited.
The DRC will need time to assess your case before they bring a claim on your behalf.
They will send you lengthy questionnaires requiring lengthy answers.
Then they'll send even moore forms asking for supplementary information.
All this time the clock is ticking away.
So don't hang about.
Tip: Phone them first thing in the morning. Although the DRC states that it will take new calls up until 7:30 pm and that their telephone advisers work until 8 pm, the reality is that you may have to wait for an hour or so if you phone anytime time other than early in the morning.
As many replies here have suggested, your employers may offer a "package" for you to quit. Such a package, although rarely a large amount, is likely to exceed a tribunal award. And would you want to work for such a shitty emplyer again anyway ? Get union baking if possible and enlist the union's help in negotiating your "package."
Good luck :thumbup:
Sex God
Quote by PoloLady
I can't possibly comment on your own situation with specifics, but I wouldn't mind betting that time and attendance will play a part in the selection and if someone has had a lumpy amount of time off and there is the prospect of more lengthy abscences in the future, then that will play a part, cos lets face it an employee that isn't at work, isn't very effective.
Deep-joy if they do say this - as the time-off was as a result of cancer she will be protected by the DDA 1995. It will not be deemed fair selection as they are in breach of an ACT. The ACT also states it is not the employee or prospective employees responsibility to provethis is what they did (but need to have reason to suspect)- it is the employers responsibiliity toprove they did not breach the ACT.
Yep don't disagree with you PoloLady and thats why you run up a matrix to ensure that you can prove that you've done the job right even if it's the intention not to do it right....if that makes any sense.
Sex God
Not going to give a big long reply here, but if you want to chat about it, need further advice or want a second opinion to that of the solicitor then feel free to contact me.
There are new rules which came into force towards the end of last year (Dimissal and Disciplinary Procedures) which the company should have had in place and used, but which your partner will also have a duty to comply with, also there are time limitations on cases (usually three months, in this case from the date of the dimissal i'e the redundancy which for the purposes of the law is classed as a dismissal)
This is the type of situation I deal with daily, giving advice, representing employees and taking tribunal claims, so I do know what I'm talking about. Feel free to contact me if you like and I'll look over you're case with you.
There are new rules which came into force towards the end of last year (Dimissal and Disciplinary Procedures) which the company should have had in place and used, but which your partner will also have a duty to comply with, also there are time limitations on cases (usually three months, in this case from the date of the dimissal i'e the redundancy which for the purposes of the law is classed as a dismissal)
This is the type of situation I deal with daily, giving advice, representing employees and taking tribunal claims, so I do know what I'm talking about. Feel free to contact me if you like and I'll look over you're case with you.
