Sacked for no reason

reehsetin

rather than have that rule they just shouldn't employ relatives in the first place! stupid rule

ceridwen

reehsetin wrote: »

rather than have that rule they just shouldn't employ relatives in the first place! stupid rule

Well - that would be a better idea than trying to penalise an innocent person because of a relatives conduct.

But - ITRW there are one heck of a lot of places that employ relatives of people - but don't go on to judge someone by their relatives conduct. Most of the time these situations work out to everyone's advantage - as most of the time the employer thinks "Okay - person x is a good worker - so chances are that their relative will be as well" and a lot of us have probably been offered a job at some point in our lives sight unseen because the employer liked our relative or we asked for a job for a friend of ours (I can recall myself that I was offered a job at one point because they knew my parents on the one hand - and someone else ringing up a friend of mine and offering them a job sight unseen because I said I thought they would want it:)). This happens all the time...

However - ultimately - employers have to recognise that we are not "our brothers keeper" and not penalise us because of someone else's errors.

view

Thank goodness this is not in all our employment contracts! with my brother I would never be in employment! :-)

joeypesci

Interesting. I'd like to see the outcome. Saying the person who's been sacked is allowed another person in the meeting with them means they are doing a formal meeting, like a disciplinary.

But yeah, sounds totally illegal to me. Years ago when digital cameras were coming out, I got a Kodak one from Kodak site I think it was, that was mis-priced. Was all over Watchdog as they refused to ship the ones paid for and offered refunds instead. One of those was mine. They claimed they could terminate the sales contract whenever they wanted. Trading Standards said Kodak's contract isn't legally binding if it was an unfair contract at the beginning.

So it sounds like it's the same with this job. Claiming she can't do anything because she signed the terms of employment is bollards. Because if those terms were illegal in the first place, as others have said, then they'd be void.

malcindebt

UPDATE!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry it's been solong but the bloody computer packed in on the day we had the meeting, anyway.

It didn't go to well at first. The manager just sat their reading the terms of the contract to us everytime we asked a question.

In the end my friend took the decision to phone the regional manager and demand a further meeting with him present, and that is what she got.

In this meeting the regional guy was brilliant. He phoned HR and spoke to them, and also took time to call and speak to ACAS whilst we were in the room. (my idea!!!)

Everything sorted not only for Mish my friend, but also the regional manager is going to speak to the guys at the top of the tree and get this contract matter resolved properly, i.e. have it removed from the employment contract.

RESULT!!!!!

jdturk

malcindebt wrote: »

UPDATE!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry it's been solong but the bloody computer packed in on the day we had the meeting, anyway.

It didn't go to well at first. The manager just sat their reading the terms of the contract to us everytime we asked a question.

In the end my friend took the decision to phone the regional manager and demand a further meeting with him present, and that is what she got.

In this meeting the regional guy was brilliant. He phoned HR and spoke to them, and also took time to call and speak to ACAS whilst we were in the room. (my idea!!!)

Everything sorted not only for Mish my friend, but also the regional manager is going to speak to the guys at the top of the tree and get this contract matter resolved properly, i.e. have it removed from the employment contract.

RESULT!!!!!

And without anyone getting balshy....result!

SueC_2

ceridwen wrote: »

But - ITRW there are one heck of a lot of places that employ relatives of people - but don't go on to judge someone by their relatives conduct. Most of the time these situations work out to everyone's advantage - as most of the time the employer thinks "Okay - person x is a good worker - so chances are that their relative will be as well" and a lot of us have probably been offered a job at some point in our lives sight unseen because the employer liked our relative or we asked for a job for a friend of ours (I can recall myself that I was offered a job at one point because they knew my parents on the one hand - and someone else ringing up a friend of mine and offering them a job sight unseen because I said I thought they would want it:)). This happens all the time...

However - ultimately - employers have to recognise that we are not "our brothers keeper" and not penalise us because of someone else's errors.

Fair point, but, playing devil's advocate, what you're actually saying is that we're happy to be tarred with the same brush as our relatives when it's nice happy stuff, but otherwise not.

In fairness, if it's okay for an employer to think "Okay - person x is a good worker - so chances are that their relative will be as well", why shouldn't it be okay for them to think "Okay - person x is a bad worker - so chances are that their relative will be as well"?

I'm not saying I think this employer was in any way right, by the way, and categorically don't think that. I just think we need to be a bit careful what we wish for.

Each step of the way, every employee should be judged on their own merits, and not those of their family or friends.

Valli

good news
thanks for the update

I have worked in MANY places where siblings and indeed partners were employed and have NEVER heard of such a clause.

Only (remotely) similar rule I have ever come across is staff not being allowed to serve (ie hand goods over to/take payment from) relatives - which is intended to prevent fraud.

amersall

good news, excellent result. way to go !!