I really need some help with this

donnaessex

Exactly right SueC.

fred7777

SueC wrote: »

I disagree. They are on a retainer to advise the company on how they should (ie. before the event) handle HR matters. Not to advise individual employees on how to respond to a situation where the company has not sought or taken this advice (ie. after the event).

What could they possibly say to the OP? "Our client, the people who retain us and pay for our services, have acted completely inappropriately and you should pursue them for compensation. Here, let us draft some letters for you..."? They would be advising her to take action against their client, which their client would then ask them to respond to, and defend, on their behalf. They would therefore be representing both the 'accuser' and the 'accused'. I think that's fairly clearly a conflict of interest.

In any case, the OP's employment has been terminated, she no longer represents the company, therefore she cannot seek advice from a company resource.

Well the first thing they could say is " This is a consultation meeting about redundancy" or they could start the disciplinary procedures for dismissal on the grounds of capability on behalf of the company in exactly the same way as an in house HR department would act.

Either way the OP would know what the situation was.

If a company has contracted a HR consultancy to do their HR then they should act as an in house HR department would act.

Would you expect a company's HR department to declare a conflict of interest and not talk to an employee about their redundancy or dismissal?

WeakHeart

fred7777 wrote: »

If a company has contracted a HR consultancy to do their HR then they should act as an in house HR department would act.

It would depend on the support paid for. Where I work it is telephone / website support only, to named managers or named HR personnel only. Also there is NO provision for actual support beyond appeals if a case does go to ET.

SueC_2

fred7777 wrote: »

Well the first thing they could say is " This is a consultation meeting about redundancy" or they could start the disciplinary procedures for dismissal on the grounds of capability on behalf of the company in exactly the same way as an in house HR department would act.

Either way the OP would know what the situation was.

If a company has contracted a HR consultancy to do their HR then they should act as an in house HR department would act.

Would you expect a company's HR department to declare a conflict of interest and not talk to an employee about their redundancy or dismissal?

I'm not sure how much clearer Donna or myself can be.

These people are an advice service, not an operational HR function to 'do' the company's HR.

They offer advice to the company.

But they can only offer advice if they are made aware of a situation which requires advice.

If they do offer advice it is entirely up to the company whether or not to follow it.

They do not act as an in-house HR department.

Employees of the company do not have access to them.

The only people who have access to them are the peope within the company who are handling HR matters on behalf of the company, eg. Department Managers.

WeakHeart

SueC wrote: »

But they can only offer advice if they are made aware of a situation which requires advice.

Absolutely and in my experience, despite having access to the service many often act first then only call up for help when things have gotten messy, just as you describe Sue!

Gettingtherequickly

I agree with the advisory only being as good as the information given and independent legal advise should be obtained.

I worked for a large company with a lethally efficient HR director, woe betide any director who tried to circumvent the legal process. When we were taken over, one of the first persons to be made redundant was the HR director and payroll processor (I managed the payroll as one of my tasks) to be replaced by HR advisory and outsourced payroll. When the time came for the expected redundancies, it was a complete shambles. As I was aware of the process, I spent weeks re-assuring those on the redundancy list what their rights were and they were being told otherwise, very difficult especially as I was one of those going.

Anyway, day of the official confirmation of dates, rates etc, I was last to go into the meeting and was told my numbers and I told them bluntly they were wrong, which they did not expect! When I gave the reasons, they suspended my meeting until they sought legal advice. When it was reconvened, I was told a lot of people owed me a drink as they had to retract the letters given and issue new ones with the correct numbers. Still got it wrong for payday as the outsource payroll taxed us all on our redundancy though! I had to calm down before firing off a stroppy email for that error.

I admit that I was, and everyone else, lucky because of my payroll knowledge, but Donna, you will be aware of things going through, so use it to your advantage. I also appreciate that it is easy to fight on behalf of someone else, I know because I fought on behalf of my colleagues I had the incentive & will to keep battling, if it were myself alone, I may have backed off. However, you have mini Donna's to battle for, so pretend they are work colleagues and battle for them!

GTQ

fred7777

SueC wrote: »

I'm not sure how much clearer Donna or myself can be.

My post was actually written before Donna's at 1.34 where she explains exactly what the HR consultancy does.

donnaessex

Very quick update.

He's just given me a letter and it states dismissal from a temporary contract. I said that it was made permanent on 1st June 2010 and he said no it wasnt. I have my copy of the contract so I'm fine on that count. He says in the letter that he will make me an ex-gratia payment for my money.

I asked him why he was being so unfair and he said he wasnt, so I just said, OK I'll keep my head down and do my work til Friday then we'll see which one of us is fair when I leave.

I've been to the toilets, had a good cry and feel better now.

Uncertain

donnaessex wrote: »

Very quick update.

He's just given me a letter and it states dismissal from a temporary contract. I said that it was made permanent on 1st June 2010 and he said no it wasnt. I have my copy of the contract so I'm fine on that count. He says in the letter that he will make me an ex-gratia payment for my money.

I asked him why he was being so unfair and he said he wasnt, so I just said, OK I'll keep my head down and do my work til Friday then we'll see which one of us is fair when I leave.

I've been to the toilets, had a good cry and feel better now.

Difficult as it is, there is little to be gained by bandying words with the man.

I would have thought the letter plus your contract is more than enough to establish dismissal with over a year's service.

You have three months (less one day) to file an employment tribunal claim. I suspect, after some huffing and puffing, they will look to reach a settlement via ACAS once they realise they haven't a leg to stand on.

SueC_2

donnaessex wrote: »

that he will make me an ex-gratia payment for my money.

I asked him why he was being so unfair and he said he wasnt, so I just said, OK I'll keep my head down and do my work til Friday then we'll see which one of us is fair when I leave.

By which time you will have taken legal advice... won't you...?