Can I be "made" to go self employed? / written warning / reference

Deefor

I started work in Jan 2008 in a supervisor role, after three months trial, they seemed happy with my work, but gave me another 3mth trial rather than a full contract. After that period although I was technically out of the trial period it took ages to actually get a contract..then about 9mths in, they said they weren't happy with my work and reduced my position from supervisor, with a £4k/yr pay cut. I seem to have been doing the same work now. Two weeks ago I was told that I hadn't been working well enough, and that I hadn't called a client back despite him leaving two messages for me..( I didn't get them).
My boss has now said that I will get a written warning and they won't ever give me a refernce becasue of this... or I can go self employed and they will give me three months wages up front and be able to give me a reference in the future.

I feel under great pressure as I don't want to go self employed, but its fairly obvious that's what my boss is pushing for.. Any advise welcome please

halight

Hi mate,

Sorry but i think that thay are taking the p$%s
I think that you should go to your local CAB and ask were you stand on a legal footing.

All the best mate

halight

By the way.

Welcome and thanks for posting your first of many posts!!!!!

Deefor

thanks - hadn't thought of CAB!

L-train

Try Acas too. https://www.acas.org.uk

McKneff

yes, they are taking the p...
The will give you a reference if you go self employed and
they wont give you a reference if you dont. What utter rubbish. Its not only rubbish it is tantamount to bullying not to mention blackmail. I would certainly speak to CAB.
It is big company you work for.
Is your boss the owner of the company.

Unity

Unfortunately you are on a hiding to nothing with this, I'm afraid.

A mate was in a similar situation just recently in that he was sacked with absolutely no warnings at all - either verbal or written and it certainly wasn't gross misconduct. He was met on a Monday morning outside his workplace and asked to wait outside. After 20 minutes he was called into an office with three 'bosses' and handed a letter. They would not comment at all on why he had been sacked. He found out later that they had taken an ex-employee on - on the same day, obviously sacrificing his job to give to this other bloke.

He contacted two employment lawyers and both said the same thing - under current employment law - you don't have a leg to stand on if you have worked for a company for less than 12 months. He had been there just over 10 and no complaints at all about his work.

So effectively they can do pretty much what they like and it looks like you are headed for the door if you don't want to go self-employed. I'm really sorry to tell you this - it stinks.

The really daft thing is that they are quite prepared to give my mate a good reference!

Deefor

nationwide company, but local offices... have funny feeling its got to do with cutting costs...!!!

mrtg0525

Also, careful with the self-employment if you do consider going down that route - continuing to work for the same company after magically becoming self-employed makes it highly likely that you'll get caught under IR35, so do your sums very carefully. You'd be surprised how much more they'd need to pay you just to ensure that you'll end up with the same net income.

Unity

Deefor wrote: »

nationwide company, but local offices... have funny feeling its got to do with cutting costs...!!!

Aye - in more ways than one! Once you are past that 12 months limit they'd have a lot more trouble getting rid and if they do this with everyone think what they'll save in pension contributions. In addition they can take someone on at less salary, because there are so many looking for jobs and after another ten months or so get rid of them! If you choose to go self-employed then they save again on everything from N.I. contributions to pensions.

It's a disgrace and you have my sympathy, but I don't suppose it is much consolation.

Deefor

i assume that the magical 12 months doesn't include the two periods of "trial"? It now makes a little more sense as to why had second trial period....DOH!!!!