We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Unfair dismissal - help please!
Comments
-
valos_mummy wrote: ». . . but her tax status might have changed as dad died in 2008.
I don't see there would have been a change in her tax status - spouses have been taxed as individuals for decades now.0 -
Thanks LittleVoice, I didn't know if that was the case or not. She's agreed that solicitor is probably the best way to sort this out so I'm looking online for her.Do good deeds and you could raise the curtain, do good deeds and you could really raise your life....0
-
valos_mummy wrote: »Just a quick question though; as I mentioned, mum has been to the job centre to go on jobseekers. She had the letter to say she's been approved - now she gave the job centre his details, and they've obviously been in contact with him. What would he had to have said in order for her to be able to get the benefit straight away? I was under the impression that if she walked out she'd have to wait for it, and if she was sacked she'd have to wait for it? :think:
If the approval was not conditional on obtaining information from the employer, then it does appear that they have contacted him.
As I understand it, being sanctioned for being "sacked" depends on the circumstances. Being sacked is being dismissed. Redundancy is one of the grounds for dismissal which does not incur a sanction. Is your mother being replaced at work?0 -
Sorry, from my experience, tribunals do not prejudice a claimant for claiming constructive dismissal. Especially ones that have done so, because of their attempts to claim their statutory employment rights. It could not be mistaken that the claimant would not have done this lightly. She had been working there for twelve years and has recently learned of her rights under the National Minimum Wage Act, for her pay and the Working Time Regulations, for her holidays, as well other related legislation for other breaches of her employment rights.
Tribunals don't - the law does! In constructive dismissal cases the burden of proof is on the employee throughout that they had no choice but to resiign - and the OP's mum has submitted no formal grievances or appeals so she will loose because she does have other alternatives than resigning. That statistics speak for themselves - less than 3% of constructive unfair dismissal claims win.0 -
LittleVoice wrote: »If the approval was not conditional on obtaining information from the employer, then it does appear that they have contacted him.
As I understand it, being sanctioned for being "sacked" depends on the circumstances. Being sacked is being dismissed. Redundancy is one of the grounds for dismissal which does not incur a sanction. Is your mother being replaced at work?
As far as I know she hasn't been. The shop itself is a butchers, and mum, along with A and the bosses wife, helped prepare pies/ready meals/quiches for the shop. Mum has it on good authority (remember how the boss is her cousin - well his mum, her aunt is the authority) that he no longer wanted to expand the business, and wanted to take over more of the day to day running himself, in order to save money.....
Mum feels that he has put pressure on her to leave so he wouldn't have to pay her any redundancy. For example, during the bad snow recently, he wanted her to get in work for a 7.30am start - work being a 20-30 min drive away. Mum expressed concern about getting there in such bad conditions but got told to suck it up basically. She felt he was going to look for any excuse to push her out, so she got there for 7.30am, after driving on the slippy dangerous roads, in tears the whole way there as she as so scared
Her aunt has told her that he's now going round telling everyone she left him in the lurch now. Aunt btw, is on mum's side - even though it's her own son, she said when he comes to business he's a total git.Do good deeds and you could raise the curtain, do good deeds and you could really raise your life....0 -
Well, only less than two. I think it was nineteen ninety-one.LittleVoice wrote: »I don't see there would have been a change in her tax status - spouses have been taxed as individuals for decades now.
The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
I think one has to be dismissed because of gross misconduct, rather than just not being good enough at their job, for example.LittleVoice wrote: »If the approval was not conditional on obtaining information from the employer, then it does appear that they have contacted him.
As I understand it, being sanctioned for being "sacked" depends on the circumstances. Being sacked is being dismissed. Redundancy is one of the grounds for dismissal which does not incur a sanction. Is your mother being replaced at work?The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
-
Aah, I wasn't far off.LittleVoice wrote: »Made me check - it was 6 April 1990 that separate taxation came into force.
At my age the memory does play a few tricks every now and then. The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
Just to let you all know, mum sent the letter requesting payment for the backpay and holidays (she rounded her ballpark estimate up) and the day after he would have received it, she had a cheque in the post. No letter, or clarification of her job, just the cheque. :T
She's decided to leave it at that - if he'd turned around and said go jump for it (which tbh we thought he would), then she would have taken it all the way but she's happy with what she's got (and was entitled to).
Me and OH reckon he knows that he would have been royally screwed if she'd pushed this to tribunal level so has paid her off quickly to avoid it. Mum has got what she asked for, and doesn't want to be greedy (her words). I'm happy that she did the letter though, he would have got away without paying that if he could have!
Thanks for all the advice peeps :beer:Do good deeds and you could raise the curtain, do good deeds and you could really raise your life....0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards