Unlawful dismissal?

lucylucky

Zazen999 wrote: »

I know the definition of irony - honest - and you were pwned!

I am sure you do, that was not my point, which you missed, yet again:D

Orville

lucylucky wrote: »

I am sure you do, that was not my point, which you missed, yet again:D

He is quite famed for doing that....:rotfl:

Zazen999

Orville wrote: »

He is quite famed for doing that....:rotfl:

He is a she.

lucylucky wrote: »

I am sure you do, that was not my point, which you missed, yet again:D

So you keep saying......As I said, don't give up the day job...I totally understand your bad attempt at sarcasm; but irony it wasn't....the irony was you posting that 'if it was so obvious it could easily be found' AFTER someone had already found it.

lucylucky

Zazen999 wrote: »

He is a she.



So you keep saying......As I said, don't give up the day job...I totally understand your bad attempt at sarcasm; but irony it wasn't....the irony was you posting that 'if it was so obvious it could easily be found' AFTER someone had already found it.

As I said I have no inclination to explain myself to you.

You think what you will, you have still missed the point. And not for the first time.

Zazen999

lucylucky wrote: »

As I said I have no inclination to explain myself to you.

You think what you will, you have still missed the point. And not for the first time.

So you keep on and on saying....

I do think what I will. I thought that, as the 'rights' situation was blatantly obvious a link could be found. And it was. So why you piped up we will never know; as a link had already been found. So you were being sarcastic and were immediately responded to. Then you say you were just being ironic. You've made no actual contribution except sarcasm and accusing me of 'not getting the point' when there was no actual point as the link had already been found.

You won't explain it because there is no explanation, because it doesn't make sense.

dickydonkin

Once again, a thread where someone has asked for help has degraded into a personal slanging match. Seems to be the same protaganist every time.

Another thread ruined.

lucylucky

dpassmore wrote: »

Once again, a thread where someone has asked for help has degraded into a personal slanging match. Seems to be the same protaganist every time.

Another thread ruined.

I think the OP has moved on as their question was, to a greater or lesser degree, answered.

Orville

Zazen999 wrote: »

He is a she.

It gets worse...!!

dickydonkin

lucylucky wrote: »

I think the OP has moved on as their question was, to a greater or lesser degree, answered.

You're not wrong but one can hardly blame the OP for coming to the conclusion that when someone has taken control of a thread by attacking any one and anything that does not conform to their way of thinking, it is understandable that he has 'moved on'.

If the rantings were relevant to the post - then fair enough - but when it gets personal and irrelevant to the thread, then that is when it is time to call it a day.

Pretty sad really.

RacyRed

toniskinner wrote: »

Hi,

As an employer I have recently had to dismiss one of my employees. Though I followed the ACAS disciplinary procedures correctly, I have not (at any point) informed the employee that he is entitled to someone to accompany them at the disciplinary hearing. After researching (alot) I can only find reference to the statutory right to ALLOW tthis but no legal requirement of the employer to INFORM this. Can someone please clarify if I am within my rights to dismiss him 'lawfully'. At no point did i REFUSE to allow him someone to accompany him.

The ACAS website etc states 'the employer SHOULD inform the employee of a right to accompaniment....' In this case does the term 'should' refer to legal requirement or purely 'good business practise'.

Responses would be greatfully receieved.

Many thanks

Just for clarity

What is the right to be accompanied?

It is the statutory right for a worker to be accompanied, by a fellow worker or trade union official, at certain disciplinary and grievance meetings.

What if the worker is dismissed?

If the worker is dismissed as a result of a disciplinary hearing he or she may have the right to complain to an employment tribunal of unfair dismissal. If they are contemplating dismissing a worker, all employers need to have followed the statutory minimum procedures.

If the employer has failed or refused to comply with a reasonable request to be accompanied at the disciplinary meeting or appeal the tribunal may order compensation of up to two weeks' pay.

If the failure by the employer leads to a finding of unfair dismissal or breach of contract by the tribunal then the worker may be entitled to greater legal remedies.

Full text on THIS ACAS page