16yr old's right to be accompanied

Mothermoo_2

My neighbour's 16 year old has been dismissed for theft, despite the fact that it does seem he did it, and he has well under one year's service, his mum is adamant that he should appeal. His workplace have agreed to meet for an appeal, but put in the usual right to be accompanied by TU Rep or fellow employee.

His mum says that as he's a minor he must be accompanied by his guardian, but the work are refusing it, saying their lawyer has agreed he doesn't have this right and it must only be TU or employee. Does anyone have any advice please?

Many thanks!

HO87

Disciplinary proceedings not only have to comply with the general laws governing employment but should also follow the rules of natural justice. Given that in all other circumstances the 16 yr-old would enjoy the benefit of being accompanied by a parent or guardian then my gut reaction to this is that the company should permit it subject to the usual provisos that the person accompanying the employee would normally be required to be an inactive party.

In a case I was involved in not that long ago a staff member was permitted to be accompanied by her father - even though she was not a juvenile (at law) and he turned out not to be inactive. She was still dismissed - and we won at tribunal.

I'm sure others will disagree.

maninthestreet

Mothermoo wrote: »

My neighbour's 16 year old has been dismissed for theft, despite the fact that it does seem he did it, and he has well under one year's service, his mum is adamant that he should appeal. His workplace have agreed to meet for an appeal, but put in the usual right to be accompanied by TU Rep or fellow employee.

His mum says that as he's a minor he must be accompanied by his guardian, but the work are refusing it, saying their lawyer has agreed he doesn't have this right and it must only be TU or employee. Does anyone have any advice please?

Many thanks!

I think you are getting confused with a police interview under caution.

Emmzi

plus if it's scotland the age of majority is 16 anyway. Scotland or England based?

glossgal

I'm staggered that they have the nerve to try and appeal frankly! if he did it then he's guilty of gross misconduct whether he's 16 or 36. The fact he's not worked there very long adds insult to injury-HE HAS NO RIGHTS!

1jim

glossgal wrote: »

HE HAS NO RIGHTS!

I agree with you on the cheek of appealing given that it appears to be that he commited this theft.
I think that we must remember that he does have rights and that he is free to make use of these, thats what makes our system fair!
I think that the company should probably let his parent/guardian attend the appeal on the proviso that they are there for the support of the child and are not there to take an active part in the meeting. A lot of large companies allow meetings to be held with someone of the persons choosing to provide support. Given that the person has commited theft, I suspect that if the process has been followed correctly the outcome will still be the same, its probably just easier to allow the parent to be present and put an end to it all....I would also refer this theft to the police as well!!

HO87

glossgal wrote: »

I'm staggered that they have the nerve to try and appeal frankly! if he did it then he's guilty of gross misconduct whether he's 16 or 36. The fact he's not worked there very long adds insult to injury-HE HAS NO RIGHTS!

I'm sorry to say it but he does. The only right he does not have (apart from being a juvenile at law with all that entails), in common with those who have less then 12 months service, is legal protection from being dismissed unfairly. He could still be wrongfully dismissed and in the circumstances set out by the OP he has the right of appeal. I'm sure if it was your 16 yr-old and you felt the company had fouled up the process, perhaps, that you'd want him to have the right of appeal. This is being reported at least second-hand, don't forget, and judgements could be being rushed to.

Whilst I understand the sentiments, guilty or otherwise, the company must still be seen to have followed a legal procedure and from that perspective allowing an appeal is wholly correct, IMO. It is perhaps even more important in cases where people are "obviously" guilty that companies strictly adhere to procedures so as to make doubly sure that the guilty do not escape on the basis of flawed procedures but also to ensure those who are "not guilty" do not get scooped up on some spurious grounds - not that rare an event, IME.

The age of majority in Scotland was reduced in 1991 to 16 for the purposes of contract law only (which to an extent includes employment) and for the purpose of the Act it was actually known as the age of legal capacity - not majority. For all other purposes it remains 18 in common with the rest of the UK.

Uncertain

Once again this forum is being spoilt by by people rushing to judgement and "answering" question that have not been asked!

The OP asked a perfectly reasonable factual question which a couple of people have taken the trouble to answer.

The others have formed seewping judgements that were not asked for, without the benefit of the facts!

Mothermoo_2

maninthestreet wrote: »

I think you are getting confused with a police interview under caution.

Pretty sure I am not

-BA-

To be honest, if he wants the employer to take him seriously he would be far better off not having his parent or guardian as backup. If it appears he has indeed committed this act then he would be much better off standing infront of them, apologising, putting forward his reasons, whatever they may be and taking whatever retribution is passed his way, like a man.

Not sure whether this is a part time job or not and no idea whether he has left education to go into the bog wide world but the big wide world is not wrapped up in cotton wool and he would be better off learning this now rather than further down the line.

Zazen999

You might want to have a look here.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/YoungPeople/Workandcareers/Yourrightsandresponsibilitiesatwork/DG_066272

And here

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/life/employment/young_people_and_employment.htm

I've never worked in any workplace where an under 16 was allowed to be accompanied by anyone other than a colleague or union rep.

If it was me I would be asking for their young person's risk assessment and the company disciplinary and grievance procedures, and [not knowing how the theft occurred] see if I can make any connection between a lack of adequate assessment or inadequacies in the training or supervision given by the employer. Then find a suitable, older, colleague who you could trust to state the person's case during the appeal hearing.