Wife told to leave company

SHIPSHAPE

dseventy wrote: »

As she has been employed less than a year, she has no employment rights, and can be sacked for any reason,

How interesting. I take it you are not talking about the UK?

SHIPSHAPE

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Thing is how do you prove that management knew before starting procedures in dismissal, if you can do this then yes you would most likely have a case. If not then management only need to follow through with the dismissal.

Very poor advice from whacker.

The burden of proof in this circumstance would shift to the employer to prove otherwise.

The employer has no issue whatsoever with the employee so the employee can reasonably suspect they are being rid simply for being pregnant.

Whacker, you really need to reign in your inaccurate and, quite franky, dangerous 'advice.'

Googlewhacker

SHIPSHAPE wrote: »

Very poor advice from whacker.

The burden of proof in this circumstance would shift to the employer to prove otherwise.

The employer has no issue whatsoever with the employee so the employee can reasonably suspect they are being rid simply for being pregnant.

Whacker, you really need to reign in your inaccurate and, quite franky, dangerous 'advice.'

Its not hard though to prove that you had no knowledge though, no paper trail and no witnesses for the OP's wife to say that she told them she was pregnant.

Thus the OP's wife would have to prove they were lying and as such the burden of proof is on the OP's wife to show they are being disciminatory.

Unless she can get one of the two people to confirm that they informed a manager or a manager was in earshot then I would say it is a difficult position to prove that the dismissal was down to being pregnant.

As for posting on here, no one should take forum advice as being correct and they should always get advice from someone that is accountable such as a solicitor. You would be stupid to only follow advice from a forum.

dseventy

SHIPSHAPE wrote: »

How interesting. I take it you are not talking about the UK?

I guess when I say "no employment rights" thats not quite correct obviously. I mean that statutory protection from Unfair Dismissal only applies after a person has been continuously employed for 12 months.

I am not sure on the pregnancy position so I can't comment on it.

D70

WhiteHorse

Mr_Mike wrote: »

... my wife is 2 months pregnant, and at least 2 people at work know about it.

Apart from simply trying to save themselves the not inconsiderable expense of a staff member on maternity leave (and presumably of the replacement), they may suspect that the pregnancy was planned and that they are being taken for a ride.

SHIPSHAPE

WhiteHorse wrote: »

Apart from simply trying to save themselves the not inconsiderable expense of a staff member on maternity leave (and presumably of the replacement), they may suspect that the pregnancy was planned and that they are being taken for a ride.

If they think that, and admit it, it would still be unlawful.

SHIPSHAPE

dseventy wrote: »

I guess when I say "no employment rights" thats not quite correct obviously. I mean that statutory protection from Unfair Dismissal only applies after a person has been continuously employed for 12 months.

D70

There is another thread regarding contracts and asserting statutory rights.

You will find you are still incorrect.

SHIPSHAPE

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Its not hard though to prove that you had no knowledge though, no paper trail and no witnesses for the OP's wife to say that she told them she was pregnant.

Thus the OP's wife would have to prove they were lying and as such the burden of proof is on the OP's wife to show they are being disciminatory.

Unless she can get one of the two people to confirm that they informed a manager or a manager was in earshot then I would say it is a difficult position to prove that the dismissal was down to being pregnant.

No, you are incorrect and do not grasp the situation here obviously.

The employee can accuse the employer of ridding them for being pregnant. In the workplace the employer may just deny that.

However, come an ET, the employer would have to prove that is not the case, the employee need not. The burden has shifted to the employer to prove it is not the case, not for the employee to prove it is.

A pregnant employee always has a strong hand.

Googlewhacker

SHIPSHAPE wrote: »

No, you are incorrect and do not grasp the situation here obviously.

The employee can accuse the employer of ridding them for being pregnant. In the workplace the employer may just deny that.

However, come an ET, the employer would have to prove that is not the case, the employee need not. The burden has shifted to the employer to prove it is not the case, not for the employee to prove it is.

A pregnant employee always has a strong hand.

I agree with what you say but come the end if the Employer can prove that they had no knowledge that the person was pregnant before they started procedures then it is not discriminatory and in showing that they hadn't been notified in writing and that the persons managers didn't know that the person was pregnant would be i presume a strong case and ultimatley it would then need the pregnant person to show that the company were lying in that they had had written notification or that the managers had heard about the pregnancy in an ET which then pushes the burden back onto the employee.

DVardysShadow

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Thing is how do you prove that management knew before starting procedures in dismissal, if you can do this then yes you would most likely have a case. If not then management only need to follow through with the dismissal stating that your wife had not informed them before procedures started.

Well, if you look carefully, it would appear that procedures for dismissal have not actually started. All Mrs OP has had is an informal meeting [which was probably intended to be deniable] where she has had feedback about chemistry. Once she tells the office, of course, it is too late to start dismissal.

If it is a straight 'less than 12 months, no-hold barred' dismissal', the lack of due process on capability or whatever counts for nothing. But after the office knows about the pregnancy, the lack of due process would be something of a smoking gun.