I really need some help with this

donnaessex

Sorry to bug you all with this again, but does anyone have any advice for me regarding what to do now?

All day today I have been changing the access details of our accounts - HR website, Medical Insurance policy, company fuel cards etc to the Accountant so I no longer have Administrator access. I should really be able to completely walk away tomorrow with all the ends tied up with regards the work that I do.

Do I continue to just idly give my job away and then sucker punch them after I get paid (28th), or should I start talk of tribunals now which terrifies me?

DVardysShadow

donnaessex wrote: »

Sorry to bug you all with this again, but does anyone have any advice for me regarding what to do now?

Take all your paper work home. Make sure you get a letter from the boss saying how you are departing. Nothing in writing, make it plain you are staying! Reasons being

• you need to be able to fight one case, not deal with shifting sands
• if you just stop attending because the boss said something he did not put in writing, it becomes easier for him to show sloping shoulders and get away with making out that you just walked out.

The more you fight your corner now, the less likely it is that you will need to take it to ET.

KiKi

You need to get in writing the reason they asking dismissing you. Sorry if I missed it but it seems that you're just going on a conversation with your boss. You need to get, in writing, the reasons for your dismissal. You can't challenge anything without that.

ETA - by reason, I don't mean "we need someone qualified". That's the reason they're bringing someone in. They need to list a legal reason. If they can't, then it's ironic that they're bringing someone qualified...

Again, sorry if you posted that already.
KiKi

donnaessex

Thank you both of you. I'll ask first thing tomorrow for a letter detailing my monies owed, leave date and notice period etc.

Googlewhacker

KiKi wrote: »

(One of the reasons my old company could never, ever ask for it as an essential criteria for an HR role (although it was always desirable) is because asking for any non-essential qualification is potentially discriminatory towards certain groups who've had less access to education, finance, or taken time out of their career to raise children etc. Admittedly, I worked for the public sector in a company VERY on the ball with equality issues, but the point still stands.)

It is a bit ridiculous that you cannot employ the best people.....

KiKi

Googlewhacker wrote: »

It is a bit ridiculous that you cannot employ the best people.....

I agree with your statement, but I disagree that qualifications = best. If I was recruiting an HR Director for a large global blue chip company, I'd choose an unqualified one with 20 years' experience of delivering excellence across 8 multi-national companies, over a CIPD qualified one who only had one year's experience in a small company of 50 people.

Also, if qualifications were essential for the job (accountants, lawyers, engineers etc) then that was adhered to, absolutely.

However, I agree that their stance on essential / desirable qualifications was inhibiting. The reason it was done was because minority groups were unable to fulfil criteria for qualifications (which, from a profession perspective, are not essential) as well as majority groups. I don't know if there are legal cases to back it up, but it was deemed to be indirect discrimination by the company, and we had been taken to court (and lost) on similar issues previously. The company tended to live a little in fear of ETs - although things were changing when I left which is good.

Sorry OP, off topic - slightly!

KiKi

Googlewhacker

KiKi wrote: »

I agree with your statement, but I disagree that qualifications = best. If I was recruiting an HR Director for a large global blue chip company, I'd choose an unqualified one with 20 years' experience of delivering excellence across 8 multi-national companies, over a CIPD qualified one who only had one year's experience in a small company of 50 people.

Also, if qualifications were essential for the job (accountants, lawyers, engineers etc) then that was adhered to, absolutely.

However, I agree that their stance on essential / desirable qualifications was inhibiting. The reason it was done was because minority groups were unable to fulfil criteria for qualifications (which, from a profession perspective, are not essential) as well as majority groups. I don't know if there are legal cases to back it up, but it was deemed to be indirect discrimination by the company, and we had been taken to court (and lost) on similar issues previously. The company tended to live a little in fear of ETs - although things were changing when I left which is good.

Sorry OP, off topic - slightly!

KiKi

No you make a good point. However to me seeing someone having a qualification that is related to the field whether or not a neccessity shows the added extra that is required.

It makes a mockery of those that go and get the qualification and to be fair unless it is an industry standard then you could say asking for someone with a degree is indirect discrimination.

at the end its a joke really!

DVardysShadow

donnaessex wrote: »

Thank you both of you. I'll ask first thing tomorrow for a letter detailing my monies owed, leave date and notice period etc.

And the reason why !!!! The rest of it does not matter as much.

donnaessex

DVardysShadow wrote: »

And the reason why !!!! The rest of it does not matter as much.

But what if he puts "due to company restructuring"? Thats usually the standard line he uses in redundancy situations.

Googlewhacker

donnaessex wrote: »

But what if he puts "due to company restructuring"? Thats usually the standard line he uses in redundancy situations.

You have to know why so you can challenge it!