We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Unfair dismissal. Need help and advice.
beauchampy
Posts: 4 Newbie
This is going to be a long post, so whoever out there is reading this, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for taking the time to.
Background:
I worked for a small (employs 3 people) IT support company. The nature of the job was driving around the county in a company van to both homes and business carrying out IT support tasks. I had been working there since August 11th 2008 until my dismissal today on March 3rd 2009. The business has recently been under a great deal of financial strain and a couple of months ago all members of staff agreed to take a pay cut down to national minimum wage so no one would lose their job.
Events leading up to my dismissal.
On Friday 27th February I was instructed to deliver a PC back to a customer. This particular customer lives in an area I would usually have taken the motorway to access, however my boss told me on that particular day to program the sat nav to take me on an alternate route (i.e. avoid the motorway) as he believed it was a quicker route.
So that’s what I did. Upon taking this route I encountered a ford. I took note of the level indicator at the side which clearly showed that the level of the water did not exceed the minimum marked height on the indicator. Picture here:
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll10/baconsandwichhukd/N95626.jpg
I did not drive through this ford at great speed, or at a speed which I thought could cause any damage to the vehicle. I even have video footage of myself driving through it! (Call me crazy but I thought it would be cool to film myself going through it). There was even a bird in the way on the water which caused me to slow down even further.
Once the van pass through the ford, it stalled. It would start. I used the starter motor to pull my van out of the way of traffic coming from behind me.
The van needed to be towed back to the office by the AA as it was inoperable. I continued my designated job in my own personal car.
Upon returning to the office I was told by my boss that I was liable to pay the excess on the insurance as he feared the van required a new engine. I told him I thought I was not liable and that I needed some time to process what had happened that day and would get back to him later.
Upon returning home, I sent my employer the following email:
[FONT="]Dear <name removed>
I write concerning the breakdown of the van today on my way to <place name removed> to undertake a job on your instructions.
I can accept no responsibility for the breakdown for the following reasons.
1. You instructed me to not use the motorway as I would usually have done and so I had to follow the Sat Nav instructions to find an alternative route.
2. I took note of the fact that the indicators by the side of the road did not show that the ford was high. Please find attached a picture of the level indictor which clearly shows the level of the water does not even exceed the minimum marked height on said indicator.
3. I had no reason to think that the van could not negotiate the ford and had not received any instruction or training from you regarding this situation. In fact I have had no specific training from you regarding driving any company vehicle whatsoever.
4. The policy you referred to regarding my liability to pay any insurance excess specifically refers to accidental damage to company vehicles. However, this was not an accident. I was not driving recklessly in any way but rather trying to fulfil the specific instructions you had given me. This was just an unfortunate occurrence for which I can take no responsibility.
Because of the above I need to make it clear that I think it is unreasonable for you to suggest that I will have to pay any excess incurred because of an insurance claim.
Yours sincerely.
<name removed>
[/FONT]
My employer did not respond to the above email.
Dismissal –March 3rd (4 days later)
I had previously booked off Monday March 2nd as a holiday, so I returned to work on Tuesday March 3rd expecting to have a discussion about the events which had occurred on Friday.
Upon entering the office, my employer was joined by someone who I did not recognise, who I was then told was the newly appointed HR consultant.
We sat down and began our discussion. I was told that I was being dismissed due to the way I handled the situation on Friday; because I had not taken any responsibility for what had happened. I was told that I had 4 ½ days holiday, I had worked 2 days that month, so the 6 days salary that I was owed would be taken off the insurance excess of £420, leaving me £205.12 to pay.
Obviously I was utterly devastated by this news and certainly had tears in my eyes when I left. I had barely anything to say. I was handed a letter informing me that I was being dismissed. The reason for which is written as follows;
“The reason for your dismissal is that I am not happy with your treatment of the Company van on 27th February. I believe that your decision to drive through a ford when it was clear that the water level was high, amounts to negligence. In addition, in order for the engine to have become flooded I can only assume that you were driving too fast for the conditions”
My defence to that is what is written in the letter above. I also added a further point during our meeting today that during my first week (my training week) that myself and my boss drove through the very same ford (him driving, me in the passenger seat). He did not bat an eyelid.
So now I’m in a right pickle. As I write this I’m waiting on the phone to ACAS (can take up to an hour to get through to them sometimes). I don’t know whether to take this to a tribunal as unfair dismissal.. or if I should plead with my boss to allow me to resign other than be sacked. Its going to be ruddy impossible to get a job after being sacked, especially with the current job climate anyway!
Your advice and thoughts are greatly appreciated.
Paul
Update: just got off the phone to ACAS who told me without having worked there for 1 year I would not have grounds to go to a tribunal and be heard for unfair dismissal.
However, because he's taking this money from my wages, that can be against the law. May enable me to go to a tribunal and have my case heard.
May have to see a solicitor.
Background:
I worked for a small (employs 3 people) IT support company. The nature of the job was driving around the county in a company van to both homes and business carrying out IT support tasks. I had been working there since August 11th 2008 until my dismissal today on March 3rd 2009. The business has recently been under a great deal of financial strain and a couple of months ago all members of staff agreed to take a pay cut down to national minimum wage so no one would lose their job.
Events leading up to my dismissal.
On Friday 27th February I was instructed to deliver a PC back to a customer. This particular customer lives in an area I would usually have taken the motorway to access, however my boss told me on that particular day to program the sat nav to take me on an alternate route (i.e. avoid the motorway) as he believed it was a quicker route.
So that’s what I did. Upon taking this route I encountered a ford. I took note of the level indicator at the side which clearly showed that the level of the water did not exceed the minimum marked height on the indicator. Picture here:
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll10/baconsandwichhukd/N95626.jpg
I did not drive through this ford at great speed, or at a speed which I thought could cause any damage to the vehicle. I even have video footage of myself driving through it! (Call me crazy but I thought it would be cool to film myself going through it). There was even a bird in the way on the water which caused me to slow down even further.
Once the van pass through the ford, it stalled. It would start. I used the starter motor to pull my van out of the way of traffic coming from behind me.
The van needed to be towed back to the office by the AA as it was inoperable. I continued my designated job in my own personal car.
Upon returning to the office I was told by my boss that I was liable to pay the excess on the insurance as he feared the van required a new engine. I told him I thought I was not liable and that I needed some time to process what had happened that day and would get back to him later.
Upon returning home, I sent my employer the following email:
[FONT="]Dear <name removed>
I write concerning the breakdown of the van today on my way to <place name removed> to undertake a job on your instructions.
I can accept no responsibility for the breakdown for the following reasons.
1. You instructed me to not use the motorway as I would usually have done and so I had to follow the Sat Nav instructions to find an alternative route.
2. I took note of the fact that the indicators by the side of the road did not show that the ford was high. Please find attached a picture of the level indictor which clearly shows the level of the water does not even exceed the minimum marked height on said indicator.
3. I had no reason to think that the van could not negotiate the ford and had not received any instruction or training from you regarding this situation. In fact I have had no specific training from you regarding driving any company vehicle whatsoever.
4. The policy you referred to regarding my liability to pay any insurance excess specifically refers to accidental damage to company vehicles. However, this was not an accident. I was not driving recklessly in any way but rather trying to fulfil the specific instructions you had given me. This was just an unfortunate occurrence for which I can take no responsibility.
Because of the above I need to make it clear that I think it is unreasonable for you to suggest that I will have to pay any excess incurred because of an insurance claim.
Yours sincerely.
<name removed>
[/FONT]
My employer did not respond to the above email.
Dismissal –March 3rd (4 days later)
I had previously booked off Monday March 2nd as a holiday, so I returned to work on Tuesday March 3rd expecting to have a discussion about the events which had occurred on Friday.
Upon entering the office, my employer was joined by someone who I did not recognise, who I was then told was the newly appointed HR consultant.
We sat down and began our discussion. I was told that I was being dismissed due to the way I handled the situation on Friday; because I had not taken any responsibility for what had happened. I was told that I had 4 ½ days holiday, I had worked 2 days that month, so the 6 days salary that I was owed would be taken off the insurance excess of £420, leaving me £205.12 to pay.
Obviously I was utterly devastated by this news and certainly had tears in my eyes when I left. I had barely anything to say. I was handed a letter informing me that I was being dismissed. The reason for which is written as follows;
“The reason for your dismissal is that I am not happy with your treatment of the Company van on 27th February. I believe that your decision to drive through a ford when it was clear that the water level was high, amounts to negligence. In addition, in order for the engine to have become flooded I can only assume that you were driving too fast for the conditions”
My defence to that is what is written in the letter above. I also added a further point during our meeting today that during my first week (my training week) that myself and my boss drove through the very same ford (him driving, me in the passenger seat). He did not bat an eyelid.
So now I’m in a right pickle. As I write this I’m waiting on the phone to ACAS (can take up to an hour to get through to them sometimes). I don’t know whether to take this to a tribunal as unfair dismissal.. or if I should plead with my boss to allow me to resign other than be sacked. Its going to be ruddy impossible to get a job after being sacked, especially with the current job climate anyway!
Your advice and thoughts are greatly appreciated.
Paul
Update: just got off the phone to ACAS who told me without having worked there for 1 year I would not have grounds to go to a tribunal and be heard for unfair dismissal.
However, because he's taking this money from my wages, that can be against the law. May enable me to go to a tribunal and have my case heard.
May have to see a solicitor.
0
Comments
-
"which clearly shows the level of the water does not even exceed the minimum marked height on said indicator."
--
What "minimum marked height on said indicator"? I cant see one.
Is that the van in question?
Also what is that sign on the other side of the ford near the van with the yellow mark on the back???Not Again0 -
1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »"which clearly shows the level of the water does not even exceed the minimum marked height on said indicator."
--
What "minimum marked height on said indicator"? I cant see one.
Is that the van in question?
Also what is that sign on the other side of the ford near the van with the yellow mark on the back???
Well I guess the minimum marked height would be the minimum marker you can see above the height of the water. As you can see below 2ft and 0.5m theres just a load of algae; also indicating the water is quite often much higher!
Yes that is the van.
The sign is a warning saying that there is no level indicator when approaching from that direction (the opposite direction to which I was coming from).0 -
Well I guess the minimum marked height would be the minimum marker you can see above the height of the water. As you can see below 2ft and 0.5m theres just a load of algae; also indicating the water is quite often much higher!
---
So if the height indicator said the depth of the water was 7ft but you could read 8ft its safe to drive through?
Its 1.5ft deep & thats a minimum if the road hasnt corroded away by the force of the water over time.
Somehow I doubt the exhaust is 1.5ft above the ground...
The problem is mate your employer is right in a way. Your are partly if not solely responsible for the damage.
As for the sat nav arguement I dont think you have one. Computers are not in charge of cars people are.Not Again0 -
I feel very sorry for you and I think your boss was rather harsh(maybe looking to reduce staff?).
Having said that, looking at the picture I would never have driven through that ford.0 -
1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »Well I guess the minimum marked height would be the minimum marker you can see above the height of the water. As you can see below 2ft and 0.5m theres just a load of algae; also indicating the water is quite often much higher!
---
So if the height indicator said the depth of the water was 7ft but you could read 8ft its safe to drive through?
Its 1.5ft deep & thats a minimum if the road hasnt corroded away by the force of the water over time.
Somehow I doubt the exhaust is 1.5ft above the ground...
The problem is mate your employer is right in a way. Your are partly if not solely responsible for the damage.
As for the sat nav arguement I dont think you have one. Computers are not in charge of cars people are.
It's not 1.5ft deep. 1.5 ft would be where the algae turns very green, 1ft would be just above the water.
I saw two vehnicles drive through it while I was waiting around. One was a ford transit, the other admittedly was some kind of toyota 4x4.0 -
beauchampy wrote: »It's not 1.5ft deep. 1.5 ft would be where the algae turns very green, 1ft would be just above the water.
I saw two vehnicles drive through it while I was waiting around. One was a ford transit, the other admittedly was some kind of toyota 4x4.
Agreed. My mistake its marked at about a 1ft.
He has been harsh & unfair (obviously he wants to cut costs & drop you) but its still partly your fault.
It would be interesting to see the start point & delivery point of your route together with the location of this Ford though. Not that it would make any difference.Not Again0 -
As there was no notice of disciplinary action, I think this would amount to unfair dismissal by default. I would speak to ACAS.No Longer works for MBNA as of August 2010 - redundancy money will be nice though.
Proud to be a Friend of Niddy.
no idea what my nerdnumber is - i am now officially nerd 229, no idea on my debt free date0 -
I can't give you any specific advice,only to say i would have driven through in a van too.
Do you know if the van was properly maintained and exactly what the damage is supposed to be?
where you shown the quotes?
where you made aware prior to this how much the insurance excess would be?
I wasn't even aware policies would pay out for ford damage.0 -
See if you can get a free appointment with a specialist employment lawyer - they often let you have a free half hour.
The company don't appear to have followed any procedures - they should have a disciplinary procedure that they need to follow to the letter, any deviation can result in them being taken to an emploment tribunal for failing to follow it.
From your picture, however, the ford does seem a little high and I personally wouldnt have driven through it but that's just my opinion. One wonders if you boss suggested use of the Sat Nav not because you could get to the customer's premises quicker but that the Sat Nav would take you on a more circuitous route and therefore will take longer so he can charge the customer more for delivery?
As for a new engine, I think maybe they are being a little extreme, yes it got flooded and it needs to be drained and probably rebuilt but it doesnt need a new one. As it is a small company, it sounds as though they want to be rid of you and this is a quicker way of doing so.
Go and see a lawyer (ring the Law Society and they will give you a list of 3 specialist employment lawyers in your area).0 -
Were you given a right of appeal and a right to be accompanied to the hearing?
If not, the decision would be automatically unfair.
However, where this fits in with not being able to go to tribunal if you've been there less than a year I don't know. As far as I understand, the only time a tribunal will hear a case from someone who has been unemployed less than a year is where it is a case under a head of discrimination.
Of course, I'd be happy to be corrected in this respect.#145 Save £12k in 2016 Challenge: £12,062.62/£12,000.00 Beginning Balance: £5,027.78 CHALLENGE MET
#060 Save £12k in 2017 Challenge: £11,03.70/£12,000.00 Beginning Balance: £12,976.79 Shortfall: £996.30:eek:
This is the secret message.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards