Help please. Husband suspended from work. **Updated**

Googlewhacker

Uncertain wrote: »

I think SarEl was just pointing out the legal position (correctly) and, unlike most poster on this thread (forum come to that), not making moral judgements.

From the OP's point of view this all comes down to whether the firm will honour their offer to provide a good reference. Maybe they will - who knows but I suspect he has no proof.

In my view the OP needs to test this well within the 3 month limit for bringing a constructive unfair dismissal claim. If he can prove that he was pressured into resigning in this way then he has a good chance of winning. I wouldn't expect him to get much in the way of compensation but it should be possible to get a legally binding reference agreement as part of a settlement.

Your second paragraph is a perfect example of how not to handle something however good your intentions may be. Sooner or later it will come back to bite you.

It is right to show the legal position but Uncertain, if you did get a satisfactory referance would you a) still goto an ET or b) accept the moral thing is to get on with life?

Bear in mind that if you go A) then the company may call the police for a bit of tit for tat.

bendix

Frankly, I don't think the employer sacked the guy because of a bag of crisps. I strongly suspect they used that as the perfect excuse to get rid of an employee they no longer wanted (for whatever reason - could be financial, performance related etc etc).

The simple fact of the matter is that employees enjoy ludicrous protection in the UK - employment law is a nightmare for employers. Everytime I hear a story like this I think . . ahhhhh, sounds like they've got the excuse they wanted to get rid of the guy.

In the firm I work in, I know for a fact that we carry people who are unproductive or pains in the !!!! or are just plain difficult, yet there is no legal way to get rid of them without it costing a lot of money or management time. When one of those people do something stupid (a bag of crisps moment) it provides us with exactly the ammunition we need.

I suspect the same thing happened here.

Uncertain

Googlewhacker wrote: »

It is right to show the legal position but Uncertain, if you did get a satisfactory referance would you a) still goto an ET or b) accept the moral thing is to get on with life?

Bear in mind that if you go A) then the company may call the police for a bit of tit for tat.

If the reference is satisfactory then they have kept their part of the informal bargain so I would have thought that was the end of the matter.

The problem with worrying about "tit for tat" is that they could do that anyway even if the OP does nothing, no formal agreement is in place.

Remember, although they could go to the police they cannot force them to take any action. To secure a criminal conviction would need proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not simply the reasonable belief needed for civil / employment matters.

SarEl

CFC wrote: »

I think you are misreading this on two levels Sar el. There are still managers in the world who are decent people and don't want to see someone completely ruined for doing something stupid who doesn't deserve that level of ruin, rather than 'backing down because they are on a loser'.

I myself in a similar type situation have told a trusted junior manager that if he/she wants to drop this kind of choice hint to the employee then to do so, but I will never say it myself - because I am the person who would actually hold the hearing and therefore nobody will be able to say that I have prejudged the situation without having heard all the facts in the hearing.


The fact is that if the company dismiss on theft (and most do) then that is what they do unless there are very significant mitigating factors or a history of inconsistent outcomes in the company; he has been given quite honestly the best possible outcome on this providing the company do not mention he was suspended when he resigned. There is a slight risk of this, it depends on the level of knowledge of their own HR policies by the manager. Often these days though a reference generated by HR will just consist of start date, end date, salary, job title, and reason for leaving as it avoids any potentially risky areas.

No I was not misreading it. I am perfectly aware that there are good employers - and bad employees. I am not speculating whether the employee was "in waitng" to be got rid of on other grounds, or whether they or the employer is the "good guy" here. I am pointing out that on legal grounds, this action (whether or not you can prove it) constitutes constructive dismissal, and that if proof exists then there is a case to be made. The OP should be aware that there are options - whether they wish to take them or not is a matter for their judgement and not mine. It certainly may be an "act of grace" to offer someone the chance to resign - or it may, as I have seen in just as many cases, be an employer covering up their own ineptitude in not making a fair dismissal case.

CFC

SarEl wrote: »

No I was not misreading it. I am perfectly aware that there are good employers - and bad employees. I am not speculating whether the employee was "in waitng" to be got rid of on other grounds, or whether they or the employer is the "good guy" here.
It certainly may be an "act of grace" to offer someone the chance to resign - or it may, as I have seen in just as many cases, be an employer covering up their own ineptitude in not making a fair dismissal case.

Totally agree that a lot of times it is about ineptitude - also glad to see that working on the behalf of employees has not soured your view of all managers as I had interpreted your post as that it had!

Uncertain - you may be correct that showing the generousity of 'an act of grace' has risks, it certainly does; but I would hate to see all humanity taken out of employer-employee relationships in the interests of avoiding risk totally. Not everyone deserves nailing to the wall for a mistake.

BigPhil

There is of course also the possibility that the employer could find themselves in trouble on the next occasion that they try to dismiss an employee in similar circumstances having not done so in this case.

TwistedPsycho

Well this is of course the avenue that I previously mooted as a line of defence if the OP's OH was part of one of the unions.

I do not think however that this will set a precident in itself as the employee was not actually investigated and disciplined for the offence alleged. He put his notice in instead.