Unlawful dismissal?

lucylucky

Zazen999 wrote: »

You came on here asking whether the onus was on you to inform your employee that they could be accompanied; and have been told numerous times that - yes, it was the basic right of your employee to be told that by you. You have questioned that advice and yet you still have to put the word 'useful' in italics, inferring that it was not useful advice that you were after, but some help in getting yourself out of trouble.

If you have indeed a disciplinary and grievance procedure in place, communicated properly to employees; and it follows ACAS guidance, then you should be able to read in there that the employee should be advised of their rights to be accompanied. If it does not follow ACAS guidance, then where on earth are you getting your advice from?

If it's any consolation to you - well done. I don't think I've seen such a large number of people on this board who all agree with the same point of principle. Even those usually at loggerheads on employment matters. Interesting!

"yes, it was the basic right of your employee to be told that by you."

The employee has a right to be accompanied but is it their "right "to be informed of this by their employer.

Can you provide a link to this?

Savvy_Sue

While it does shock me how ill-informed employees can be about their rights, at the end of the day it's up to employers to know what the law says and ensure that they are acting within it.

When posters here do know that employees have the right to be accompanied, they often don't know that those rights are limited. They often think that they can take their partner, or that they can go with an (adult) son or daughter, and that that's their right. It's not: an employer might allow this, but otherwise it's a properly accredited union rep or a colleague. End of.

Just wondering how the OP would have reacted if this former employee had pointed out that the process wasn't being done correctly.

Zazen999

lucylucky wrote: »

"yes, it was the basic right of your employee to be told that by you."

The employee has a right to be accompanied but is it their "right "to be informed of this by their employer.

Can you provide a link to this?

Well, I am sure I can find one if I searched; - as it is the employer putting an employee through a disciplinary it is up to them to tell their employee of their rights....it's not a random occurrence [I was walking to work this morning and got a disciplinary - it just fell into my pocket, what's that all about?]....and with regards to Employment Law it is generally the Employer who has to 'obey' it rather than just any old person you meet it's blatantly obvious.

tizerbelle

lucylucky wrote: »

"yes, it was the basic right of your employee to be told that by you."

The employee has a right to be accompanied but is it their "right "to be informed of this by their employer.

Can you provide a link to this?

Go to this page on the ACAS website, open the Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures pdf - go to page 5, paragraph 10 and it states quite clearly:

"The notification should also give details of the time and venue for

the disciplinary meeting and advise the employee of their right to be

accompanied at the meeting."

Page 6 then goes on to explain who can accompany an employee and their role.

As has been mentioned earlier in the thread, the ACAS code isn't a guideline it is the minimum standard to be followed by all employers.

lucylucky

Zazen999 wrote: »

Well, I am sure I can find one if I searched; - as it is the employer putting an employee through a disciplinary it is up to them to tell their employee of their rights....it's not a random occurrence [I was walking to work this morning and got a disciplinary - it just fell into my pocket, what's that all about?]....and with regards to Employment Law it is generally the Employer who has to 'obey' it rather than just any old person you meet it's blatantly obvious.

If it is blatantly obvious I am sure a link will be easy to find;)

tizerbelle

lucylucky wrote: »

If it is blatantly obvious I am sure a link will be easy to find;)

Look up at post 55!

john59_2

A failure to follow the Code does not, in itself, make a person or organisation liable to proceedings. However, employment tribunals will take the Code into account when considering relevant cases. Tribunals will also be able to adjust any awards made in relevant cases by up to 25 per cent for unreasonable failure to comply with any provision of the Code. This means that if the tribunal feels that an employer has unreasonably failed to follow the guidance set out in the Code they can increase any award they have made by up to 25%. Conversely, if they feel an employee has unreasonably failed to follow the guidance set out in the code they can reduce any award they have made by up to 25%.

http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=2175

That took me all of 2 mins to find and its on the first page.

I personly havn't got much time for "employers" when it comes to dissaplinary situations. They always seem to think they are above critisism of any kind, on their high horse looking down on the employee. Im not saying this is the case with the OP

lucylucky

tizerbelle wrote: »

Look up at post 55!

I know.

I was being ironic, sorry.

(the link having been posted)

celinepatricia

when my husband was dismissed, he wasnt at a disiplinary. he got his letter to attend the meeting on the Thursday, meeting was on the Monday, union rep was informed of the meeting on the Saturday morning. The particular union rep at the meeting was not the person who my husband would have personally picked. Should the company have given him more notice of the meeting, and, should he have been able to pick a work collegue of his own choosing to accompany him to the meeting?

Uncertain

celinepatricia wrote: »

when my husband was dismissed, he wasnt at a disiplinary. he got his letter to attend the meeting on the Thursday, meeting was on the Monday, union rep was informed of the meeting on the Saturday morning. The particular union rep at the meeting was not the person who my husband would have personally picked. Should the company have given him more notice of the meeting, and, should he have been able to pick a work collegue of his own choosing to accompany him to the meeting?

Probably and Yes.

The notice comes down to what is "reasonable" - did he ask for it to be postponed?

He is entitled to a work colleague or accredited union rep of his choice.

As I have pointed out before on these pages, any person who is a accredited union rep could attend (if willing), whether or not he was a member of that union and even if the rep was a close relative. The firm cannot legally refuse this providing the person is "qualified". Some firms of solicitors can provide such a person for a substantial fee.

If your husband's firm did not make this clear to him then this may be another point in your favour.

Do keep in mind that whilst these technical points may help you win your case they may not lead any compensation. The "Amber" thread was a good example. They won but the compensation was reduced to zero as the tribunal felt he would still have been dismissed had the firm done things properly.