Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • FelineFan
    • By FelineFan 24th Nov 17, 3:33 PM
    • 22Posts
    • 3Thanks
    FelineFan
    Advise - Immediate Resignation prior to Disiplinary Investigation
    • #1
    • 24th Nov 17, 3:33 PM
    Advise - Immediate Resignation prior to Disiplinary Investigation 24th Nov 17 at 3:33 PM
    Hi
    Whilst in a highly stressed state, (due to working conditions & treatment), I ranted at my boss (whilst we were in a room alone together) and said something in the heat of the moment, which he then reported and it has been deemed as gross misconduct.
    I was told there was going to be an investigation, which may lead to my dismissal.
    I have only worked for the company for 8 months, but did pass my 6 month probation with flying colours.
    However, I handed in my resignation, prior to the investigation, thinking this would stop any investigation in its tracks. This was not the case.
    However I was given 2 options. 1) Leave via immediate resignation, no investigation would take place and Id effectively leave with a clean slate/no black mark OR 2) work my notice, an investigation would still be carried out, during which time, could still lead to my instant dismissal.
    Does the 1st option sound legal? Im worried Ive been stitched up, for want of a better description.
    Im still awaiting a letter from HR to confirm this.
    Thank you
Page 2
    • Masomnia
    • By Masomnia 24th Nov 17, 6:51 PM
    • 17,118 Posts
    • 37,749 Thanks
    Masomnia
    A reference should have been agreed before you resigned, that way if they break that agreement you could potentially seek compensation if it led to the loss of a job.
    Originally posted by Energize
    Without a settlement agreement I'm not sure there's any legal recourse if they don't stick to what's agreed. Happy to be corrected on that though. Of course there's nothing in it for the business to offer a settlement.

    It seems like in this case they just don't want to go through the time, effort and cost of investigating and dismissing you; and of course there's always less risk in accepting a resignation rather than dismissing.

    At the end of the day if they're letting you resign with no other come back then you've just got to hope for the best imho regards reference. At the end of the day it's better than being dismissed whatever the outcome is!
    I could see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled. - P.G. Wodehouse
    • Energize
    • By Energize 24th Nov 17, 6:57 PM
    • 375 Posts
    • 127 Thanks
    Energize
    Without a settlement agreement I'm not sure there's any legal recourse if they don't stick to what's agreed. Happy to be corrected on that though. Of course there's nothing in it for the business to offer a settlement.
    Originally posted by Masomnia
    If the employee leaves immediately that's potentially a months salary the company has saved.
    • sangie595
    • By sangie595 24th Nov 17, 7:29 PM
    • 4,168 Posts
    • 6,856 Thanks
    sangie595
    If the employee leaves immediately that's potentially a months salary the company has saved.
    Originally posted by Energize
    True. They can insist on notice periods, be disciplined, be dismissed and definitely get a reference that says that. That's Hobsons Choice.
    • HardCoreProgrammer
    • By HardCoreProgrammer 24th Nov 17, 11:31 PM
    • 111 Posts
    • 41 Thanks
    HardCoreProgrammer
    If the employee leaves immediately that's potentially a months salary the company has saved.
    Originally posted by Energize
    No notice is required for gross misconduct dismissals.
    • Energize
    • By Energize 25th Nov 17, 1:05 AM
    • 375 Posts
    • 127 Thanks
    Energize
    No notice is required for gross misconduct dismissals.
    Originally posted by HardCoreProgrammer
    Yes but this employer obviously has an investigatory process it follows which would take who knows how long, and dismissing without notice runs the risk of a county court case where the employee disputes the gross misconduct allegation.
    • Energize
    • By Energize 28th Nov 17, 4:40 PM
    • 375 Posts
    • 127 Thanks
    Energize
    Oh one thing that's worth adding is that thanks to our benefits system you'll be sanctioned for having resigned. Ridiculous catch 22 system it creates really.
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 28th Nov 17, 4:45 PM
    • 1,227 Posts
    • 1,011 Thanks
    Comms69
    Oh one thing that's worth adding is that thanks to our benefits system you'll be sanctioned for having resigned. Ridiculous catch 22 system it creates really.
    Originally posted by Energize


    Why? Don't understand what you mean
    • Energize
    • By Energize 28th Nov 17, 4:56 PM
    • 375 Posts
    • 127 Thanks
    Energize
    Why? Don't understand what you mean
    Originally posted by Comms69
    If you leave a job voluntarily you may be prevented from claiming job seekers allowance for 3 months, known as a sanction. This fabulous system results in many people staying on a job until they get fired when they would otherwise resign.
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 28th Nov 17, 5:02 PM
    • 1,227 Posts
    • 1,011 Thanks
    Comms69
    If you leave a job voluntarily you may be prevented from claiming job seekers allowance for 3 months, known as a sanction. This fabulous system results in many people staying on a job until they get fired when they would otherwise resign.
    Originally posted by Energize


    Sorry I don't understand why its a catch 22.


    If you don't like a job, surely you should look for a new one?


    You choose to quit, why should I support you?
    • Energize
    • By Energize 28th Nov 17, 5:10 PM
    • 375 Posts
    • 127 Thanks
    Energize
    It's not a case of don't like a job, it's a case of going to be fired and made unemployable by the bad reference or resign and be sanctioned by the job centre.

    And you aren't supporting the op. The OP has presumably paid thousands in taxes so is entirely entitled to support from that tax in the event of a job loss.
    • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • By ScorpiondeRooftrouser 28th Nov 17, 5:23 PM
    • 2,101 Posts
    • 3,127 Thanks
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    It's not a case of don't like a job, it's a case of going to be fired and made unemployable by the bad reference or resign and be sanctioned by the job centre.
    Originally posted by Energize
    So you mean this only applies in the case of people who have behaved so badly they are going to be fired. I am fine with that. Why shouldn't people who do that get bad references?

    And you aren't supporting the op. The OP has presumably paid thousands in taxes so is entirely entitled to support from that tax in the event of a job loss.
    Originally posted by Energize
    It doesn't work like that. They don't lay aside everybody's taxes for their own personal use later. It costs quite a bit of money to keep the country going.
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 28th Nov 17, 5:25 PM
    • 1,227 Posts
    • 1,011 Thanks
    Comms69
    It's not a case of don't like a job, it's a case of going to be fired and made unemployable by the bad reference or resign and be sanctioned by the job centre.

    And you aren't supporting the op. The OP has presumably paid thousands in taxes so is entirely entitled to support from that tax in the event of a job loss.
    Originally posted by Energize


    I'd say I'd sooner hire someone dismissed than someone who resigned with no further employment.


    The first could be a bad employee, bad manager, funding, any number of reasons.


    The second is someone who doesn't think ahead.
    • Energize
    • By Energize 28th Nov 17, 5:30 PM
    • 375 Posts
    • 127 Thanks
    Energize
    So you mean this only applies in the case of people who have behaved so badly they are going to be fired. I am fine with that. Why shouldn't people who do that get bad references?
    Originally posted by ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    No, people are laid off due to factors such as poor performance, or inability to do the job. Some jobs just don't work out for a variety of reasons.

    It doesn't work like that. They don't lay aside everybody's taxes for their own personal use later. It costs quite a bit of money to keep the country going.
    I'm not suggesting it's a savings account, the point is someone who has contributed to the system should be supported in hard times.

    I'd say I'd sooner hire someone dismissed than someone who resigned with no further employment.


    The first could be a bad employee, bad manager, funding, any number of reasons.


    The second is someone who doesn't think ahead.
    Originally posted by Comms69
    Your personal opinion.

    In the OP's case however it's potentially a reference saying fired due to gross misconduct vs a "good" reference.
    Last edited by Energize; 28-11-2017 at 5:32 PM.
    • sangie595
    • By sangie595 28th Nov 17, 6:46 PM
    • 4,168 Posts
    • 6,856 Thanks
    sangie595
    I'm not suggesting it's a savings account, the point is someone who has contributed to the system should be supported in hard times.

    .
    Originally posted by Energize
    But actually, your second part of that sentence contradicts the first. People have "hard times" which they bring upon themselves. So whether they have contributed or not, that is their problem. Where someone has lost their job - or otherwise can't earn an income - they should be supported. And they should be supported an awful lot better than we currently do! Whether or not they might have paid taxes. The mark of a civilised society is how they treat their poor and disadvantaged. We aren't doing very well on that test.

    But that does not mean that those who place themselves in that situation, or fake their situation, should be supported. Rights and entitlements go along with responsibilities. Or they should. And too many people now seem to think that they have rights and entitlements, but no responsibilities.
    • Energize
    • By Energize 28th Nov 17, 7:09 PM
    • 375 Posts
    • 127 Thanks
    Energize
    But actually, your second part of that sentence contradicts the first. People have "hard times" which they bring upon themselves. So whether they have contributed or not, that is their problem. Where someone has lost their job - or otherwise can't earn an income - they should be supported. And they should be supported an awful lot better than we currently do! Whether or not they might have paid taxes. The mark of a civilised society is how they treat their poor and disadvantaged. We aren't doing very well on that test.

    But that does not mean that those who place themselves in that situation, or fake their situation, should be supported. Rights and entitlements go along with responsibilities. Or they should. And too many people now seem to think that they have rights and entitlements, but no responsibilities.
    Originally posted by sangie595
    I completely agree that it shouldn't matter whether or not someone has paid into the system in a developed society, but in the face of an unsympathetic attitude I felt the need to put across the fact that the op has been paying taxes and is not some sponge on society undeserving of support.
    • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • By ScorpiondeRooftrouser 29th Nov 17, 12:31 AM
    • 2,101 Posts
    • 3,127 Thanks
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    No, people are laid off due to factors such as poor performance, or inability to do the job. Some jobs just don't work out for a variety of reasons.
    Originally posted by Energize
    So you think that people who have done the job so badly that their reference makes them unemployable (your words) should be allowed to resign and claim benefits? They would still get a bad reference, so I don't see what point you are are trying to make. I suspect you don't, either.

    I'm not suggesting it's a savings account, the point is someone who has contributed to the system should be supported in hard times.
    Originally posted by Energize
    As should somebody who hasn't - but they are both being supported by society. Quite rightly so, but they are not just taking out what they put in.
    • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • By ScorpiondeRooftrouser 29th Nov 17, 12:34 AM
    • 2,101 Posts
    • 3,127 Thanks
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    I completely agree that it shouldn't matter whether or not someone has paid into the system in a developed society, but in the face of an unsympathetic attitude I felt the need to put across the fact that the op has been paying taxes and is not some sponge on society undeserving of support.
    Originally posted by Energize
    No, your point was that people who have disciplinary proceedings hanging over them should be allowed to resign to dodge their bad reference without loss of benefits. Nobody is suggesting they shouldn't claim benefits if they are fired.
    • Energize
    • By Energize 29th Nov 17, 1:57 AM
    • 375 Posts
    • 127 Thanks
    Energize
    So you think that people who have done the job so badly that their reference makes them unemployable (your words) should be allowed to resign and claim benefits? They would still get a bad reference, so I don't see what point you are are trying to make. I suspect you don't, either.
    Originally posted by ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    Actually that's not what I said and there's no need to be rude. However...

    Of course people should be allowed to resign instead of being fired. It is clearly not in the taxpayers interest to make people less employable!

    If for example, someone becomes unable to perform (for whatever reason) so they amicably resign with an agreed reference instead of being fired for poor performance should they be sanctioned? Seriously? How does that help the taxpayer in the long run?

    No, your point was that people who have disciplinary proceedings hanging over them should be allowed to resign to dodge their bad reference without loss of benefits. Nobody is suggesting they shouldn't claim benefits if they are fired.
    Originally posted by ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    Utter nonsense.
    Last edited by Energize; 29-11-2017 at 3:36 AM.
    • sangie595
    • By sangie595 29th Nov 17, 8:01 AM
    • 4,168 Posts
    • 6,856 Thanks
    sangie595
    I've got to admit, I've lost the plot of what you are trying to argue too.
    Actually that's not what I said and there's no need to be rude. However... Where was someone being rude to you? They were pointing out the inconsistency of your argument. And the tax payers have nothing whatsoever to do with someone being less employable, whatever you mean by that. But rightly or wrongly - in our opinion - the tax payers have said that they approve of a government which sanctions people for being unemployed at fault, and who claim benefits. It's called an election. And it was exactly what you said, and you have just said it again!

    Of course people should be allowed to resign instead of being fired. It is clearly not in the taxpayers interest to make people less employable! And here's where you said it again. How does resigning make someone more employable? And that has no correlation to whether they should or should not be sanctioned. So if I decide I am fed up of my job and resign, I should be paid to sit at home because that's what I want to do? If your previous employer has dismissed you because you can't do the job, why is that different? Is it different if you stole the takings and resigned? Why? Your arguments are illogical. Of course they might be more employable if they resign and LIE, but that would have nothing to do with whether they should get benefits or not; although the next time they resign instead of being sacked it will likely be for the lie they told! .

    If for example, someone becomes unable to perform (for whatever reason) so they amicably resign with an agreed reference instead of being fired for poor performance should they be sanctioned? Seriously? How does that help the taxpayer in the long run? Why should it make a difference. Being allowed to resign with an agreed reference had absolutely nothing to do with entitlement to benefit. You are being illogical. And you could argue that taxpayers are benefited when people know that leaving your job voluntarily or being dismissed and at fault will result in a sanction, so you had better have savings to live on. Not everyone who resigns or is dismissed is sanctioned. There are good reasons why these things might happen - and that is something taken account of in the decision process



    Utter nonsense.
    Originally posted by Energize
    I don't honestly understand what you are trying to argue here. Not everyone is a benefit basher if they don't support unfettered access to benefits at will. Which appears to be what underpins your arguments. There had to be a line in any system. The line here is that you will be sanctioned if you are at fault for the termination of your contact, however that is terminated. We can argue that the decision makers are misapplying the line in cases - I think they do - but that there should be no line? No, I don't think that is likely to ever get much support, and that isn't what I was saying.
    • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • By ScorpiondeRooftrouser 29th Nov 17, 9:28 AM
    • 2,101 Posts
    • 3,127 Thanks
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    Actually that's not what I said and there's no need to be rude. However...
    Originally posted by Energize
    That's exactly what you said. It's above, in black and white. You can't even follow your own argument, it seems.


    If for example, someone becomes unable to perform (for whatever reason) so they amicably resign with an agreed reference instead of being fired for poor performance should they be sanctioned? Seriously? How does that help the taxpayer in the long run?

    No, your point was that people who have disciplinary proceedings hanging over them should be allowed to resign to dodge their bad reference without loss of benefits. Nobody is suggesting they shouldn't claim benefits if they are fired.
    Originally posted by ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    Utter nonsense.
    Originally posted by Energize
    You have just stated something, then quoted me saying you said exactly that, then said "Utter nonsense". Extraordinary.
    Last edited by ScorpiondeRooftrouser; 29-11-2017 at 9:31 AM.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

129Posts Today

2,493Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • I realised I forgot in my links earlier. 1. Help to Buy ISAs, how they work and best buys...? https://t.co/BSCNPeqiVF

  • RT @whatdawndid: Thanks to uncle @MartinSLewis I just received £200 back, just like that from the student loan company! Turns out that the?

  • RT @LaraLewington: Shocked and saddened by Cheggers news. Working with him on It?s A Knockout was my 1st job in telly when I was just 19. H?

  • Follow Martin