Wife told to leave company

SHIPSHAPE

Googlewhacker wrote: »

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.

Waffle.

You are now going into a hypothetical case of what if?

I stated a fact that the burden of proof lies with the employer in this situation, which you at first didn't know.

That is all you disputed.

Now you want to argue the toss of what may happen at litigation.

dmg24

poet123 wrote: »

This does happen, one of my sons got a job after leving University 18 months into course. He had another degree course to go to the following September, eleven months on.

Unknown to him the mother of a friend who knew his situation ( which he had not been asked about) and mentioned it to management. They terminated his employement after eight weeks because of his future plans.

The difference is that, in the case you describe, there is not a potentially discriminatory reason in play.

DVardysShadow wrote: »

On this one I am not so strongly of the 'should' view, I am of the 'could' view. There are 2 'coulds' here and although you have picked out the inherent contradiction, it does not really preclude Mrs OP taking them both, serially.

From the little we have about Employer, I would think that they are not going to fall into the obvious traps over dismissing a woman approaching maternity leave, but I have little doubt from the timing, that a whisper did reach them and they acted, probably in under 3 hours.

I still don't buy it, but I'm sure we can agree to disagree.

Googlewhacker

SHIPSHAPE wrote: »

Waffle.

You are now going into a hypothetical case of what if?

I stated a fact that the burden of proof lies with the employer in this situation, which you at first didn't know.

That is all you disputed.

Now you want to argue the toss of what may happen at litigation.

I don't think I actually disputed it did I, I just stated time and time again that the employee would need to prove in the end that it was discriminatory because they will need to prove that the company were lying as it is highly unlikely the company are going to say 'yeah we sacked them because they were up the duff'

Not everything is as black and white as you'd like to make out you know.

That's my last comment on the thread as I have made my points quite clearly.

poet123

dmg24 wrote: »

The difference is that, in the case you describe, there is not a potentially discriminatory reason in play.

I know;) my point was they didnt admit to knowing he had an university place, they cited operational reasons, it was only when pushed (by my other son, who is a lawyer;)) that they admitted what they hd been told. He just wanted them to be truthful, and eventually they were.

SHIPSHAPE

Googlewhacker wrote: »

I don't think I actually disputed it did I, I just stated time and time again that the employee would need to prove in the end that it was discriminatory


My God, you still don't get it do you?

It would be for the employer to prove they were not discriminatory, employer! The company! The boss! The owners!!! The management!!!! The other side of the dispute!!!!!!!!

The employee need prove nothing should the employer fail their part!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please, please, with cherry on top, say you understand this??????????:wall:



because they will need to prove that the company were lying as it is highly unlikely the company are going to say 'yeah we sacked them because they were up the duff'

See above.

Not everything is as black and white as you'd like to make out you know.

Huh?

That's my last comment on the thread as I have made my points quite clearly.

Promise?????????:T:j:beer:

...............................................

Mrs_Murray_PLC

When I initially commented I didn't know the full story, as it were.

So I amend my response as the circumstances have changed according to section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Whether you've been there a year or not. And yes, of course the burdon of proof is on the employer in a tribunal situation -
from Tribual consult -

"An employer will rarely admit that an employee has been dismissed for bring pregnant. However, if an employee is dismissed whilst pregnant, it will be for the employer to prove that the dismissal was for a fair reason and not because of the pregnancy."

I do think they will struggle with 'lack of personal chemistry' as a fair reason. lol

dmg24

Mrs_Murray_PLC wrote: »

When I initially commented I didn't know the full story, as it were.

So I amend my response as the circumstances have changed according to section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Whether you've been there a year or not. And yes, of course the burdon of proof is on the employer in a tribunal situation -
from Tribual consult -

"An employer will rarely admit that an employee has been dismissed for bring pregnant. However, if an employee is dismissed whilst pregnant, it will be for the employer to prove that the dismissal was for a fair reason and not because of the pregnancy."

I do think they will struggle with 'lack of personal chemistry' as a fair reason. lol

Whilst I cannot think of a case that relates to pregnancy, lack of personal chemistry or something of the same ilk has certainly been accepted as good reason in unfair dismissal tribunals. Obviously the employer would need to provide some substance to their reason.

Mrs_Murray_PLC

dmg24 wrote: »

Whilst I cannot think of a case that relates to pregnancy, lack of personal chemistry or something of the same ilk has certainly been accepted as good reason in unfair dismissal tribunals. Obviously the employer would need to provide some substance to their reason.

Whilst what you say is true, it still must be justifiable, not arbitrary on the behalf of the employer - especially when the employee in question is 'known to be pregnant' and the issue has never been raised before.

A nice snippet from employmentlaw

In employment law, dismissal as a result of personality clash can be a fair dismissal or a personality clash can occur that results in a dismissal for a different ‘permitted' reason, which can potentially lead to an unfair dismissal claim. If you think you have an issue with a personality clash between employees, you should take a very careful and well thought out approach to avoid an employment law claim.
It is good employment law practice to establish the root of the problem and you should always look an employee's record. For example, if you have an employee who has always had good appraisals and a new line manager is appointed who has problems with the performance or conduct of that employee, you should consider whether the new line manager simply wants to have their own hand picked staff. This is really a management issue as much as an employment law issue but one that requires very careful handling. If you allow the manager to go ahead with a disciplinary procedure, you may then find the employee raises a grievance and other issues come out of the woodwork. You may find discrimination or bullying is occurring.
This leads to the situation where personality may be the real reason for having to consider whether to dismiss an employee. If you have an employee who is negative or confrontational, or one who is a poor manager because they exercise overbearing supervision and bully or intimidate other employees, then you may be able to dismiss them as a consequence of their personality under the ‘some other substantial reason' ground. In order to do so, you need clear evidence of the problems that have been caused. For example, simply showing that their department is less productive and has a higher absence rate is insufficient. You would need to show that one, or preferably more, have taken time off for stress as a result of the employee's actions or have raised a grievance on such matters. It is important to follow a fair and transparent procedure and give the employee a warning about their behaviour and some opportunity to improve (although this may not always be necessary if you can show that the behaviour actually amounts to gross misconduct ).