Made redundant - union refuses support

curiousperson

Hi

after a period illness which caused me performance problems at work I have been removed from my training program due to poor progress. The employer ignored the period of ill health and was not impressed by GP and occupational health reports either. My union is not supporting me and I found out that they regularly deny legal support as this is a way for them to save money for an employment lawyer.

I am considering legal action now but I do not have an insurance that would pay for a lawyer. Does anybody have advice for me? I know you must have been with an insurance company for some time before they would pay for a lawyer but maybe someone knows a way around this? Is it possible to negotiate with them?

I am looking forward to hearing from you!

ohreally

From the information provided I'd advise proceed with caution.

You may ask for the union decision to be reviewed but i can state with some confidence a full time officer will have looked at it then passed the case file to a legal officer to evaluate - this will be a qualified person. Depending on the union, they will only take the case forward if they believe there is a 60% (or greater) chance of success (this figure will be agreed by union rule therefore is not across the board).

By all means obtain a second opinion - but read between the lines.

Hammyman

Your absenteeism due to illness has obviously meant you're not going to meet the standard by the qualifying date or the end of the training course. What do you think would be achieved by keeping you on the training programme from the employers point of view? There is nothing in law which states an employer has to take account of illness - this isn't secondary school. Even in further education if you can't meet the standard by the time its exam date, you'll fail ,you don't get an "easy pass" because you've been ill and if you've had a lot of absenteeism due to illness, you'll be kicked from the course. If your job is also dependant on you passing a set level by a set date and its obvious you're not going to meet this then most employers would consider letting you go as a trainee rather than keep paying you just to lay you off anyway.

Also you may want to bear in mind that if you've been employed under 12 months, an employer can dismiss you without any reason whatsoever.

And if you've been employed more than 12 months, they have grounds to dismiss you on poor performance - again I reiterate they do not have to take being off ill into account. And depending on the OH reports, they can dismiss you if they feel that it is unsuitable for you to continue in the job due to either risk of further problems, H&S issues or simply that it is not viable to make the adjustments required.

I suspect the reason you're not getting support from the union is because you've been employed for under a year so can be let go regardless or the points I've highlighted meaning quite simply you have no leg to stand on.

Emmzi

Hammy can be a little blunt but I agree with what he says. You were not performing to required standard through training, you had an unacceptable level of absence, it does not appear to be disability related, so you have no recourse.

I am assuming you had less than 12 months employment.

The union are not usually about saving money. But so they don't look foolish, they only defend cases where they have a decent chance of winning.

acid test: if you can't find a lawyer to take you on a no win no fee basis, you don't have a good enough case. Go ask some what they think.

SarEl

I agree. It is rubbish that the union save money for themselves by denying legal support to people who have a case. In the first instance the vast majority of cases can be conducted by full time officials (and quite a number of lay officials) and for the few that cannot lawyers retained by unions are on retaining fees, so they pay anyway! The issue here is not the union, it is that you have no case. You are both having performance problems and you are not making sufficient progress in your studies. The employer is entirely justified, in whatever circumstances, in saying that they will not support your continued training because you are clearly not doing well in either field, and this action permits you to concentrate on performance. And if your performance does not improve there will be consequences for your future employment, not just your training. I would suggest that you get your head down and improve your work performance. Perhaps if you do the employer may allow you to re-enter training at a later stage, when you have shown that you are able to cope with both.

curiousperson

I had asked for advice / tips about how to get some kind of legal expenses insurance. I did not put any details about my case nor did I ask for legal advice in my post so I am really amazed that some people still comment about how little chances I have. I think this in itself shows that some people do not know much about employment law and the surrounding issues. some of the information given is also downright wrong.

In hindsight I think it was not a god idea to post this and I'll stick to people who have more knowledge about the details and the appropriate legal background (e.g. ACAS quite clearly told me that I do have a case).

dmg24

curiousperson wrote: »

I had asked for advice / tips about how to get some kind of legal expenses insurance. I did not put any details about my case nor did I ask for legal advice in my post so I am really amazed that some people still comment about how little chances I have. I think this in itself shows that some people do not know much about employment law and the surrounding issues. some of the information given is also downright wrong.

In hindsight I think it was not a god idea to post this and I'll stick to people who have more knowledge about the details and the appropriate legal background (e.g. ACAS quite clearly told me that I do have a case).

A little hint about proceeding with this case (and indeed, life in general) - all because someone tells you something you don't want to hear, it does not make them wrong.

Emmzi

for clarification, what do you believe ACAS exist to do and who do they represent?

Nicki

Sar El is a barrister specializing in employment law, and probably familiar with union financial procedures as well. Acas is a telephone advice line manned by advisers who have some training in employment law but are not qualified lawyers.

The insurance cover you seek would be to get advice from someone with Sar El's skills and experience, not acas's so I would not be too hasty to dismiss her advice out of hand as incorrect just because it isn't what you want to hear.

However to answer your question, insurance is never retrospective, so you will not be able to get any cover now which will cover you for an existing legal problem. Some solicitors may act on a no win no fee basis for employment law matters but like your union they will only do so if they believe you have a good chance of success. You can always opt to represent yourself however.

SarEl

Nicki wrote: »

Sar El is a barrister specializing in employment law, and probably familiar with union financial procedures as well. She is - over half her client lists are union supported.

Acas is a telephone advice line manned by advisers who have some training in employment law but are not qualified lawyers. Yes, some of them have several hours worth of training. Which is why they are often wrong in their advice. Take the case in point - ACAS advisors are not allowed to tell you whether you have a case. So if somebody at ACAS is telling you you have a case when they are not allowed to advise on employment law cases, what does that say about the rest of their advice?

It really isn't relevant whether you like the advice or not. If you were to take this to a tribunal I can guarantee you that the tribunal will agree with me. Irrespective of why you were failing, and even if the illness is covered by the Equality Act, the employer is on firm ground. You are paid your wage to do two things - perform in your job and succeed in your training. As far as the employer is concerned, the former is the most important to them. A well trained under-performer is as much use as a chocolate tea pot. They are employers - not a charity - and if you do not, in their eyes, earn your wage, then the ultimate solution for them is clear.

So they have reviewed the position and have decided that they wish you to concentrate on performance of your job. They are under no obligation to train you, and certainly not if you are also failing to progress in your training. Again, this is employment, not a school - their only interest is in your fulfilling your employment obligation.

Even if, and it is a big if, your illness is covered by the Equality Act, then taking your training away would be viewed as a reasonable adjustment to allow you to perform your employment role to meet the employers expectations, thus keeping you in a job. Your GP's opinion, and the opinion of OH, have no relevance - the employer has acted lawfully to ensure that you improve your performance and retain (hopefully) your job. Nobody is entitled to training, but they are entitled to the employer taking action to support improved performance at work to avoid the employee going into capability dismissal processes.

You will get no insurance now, but insurance works the same way as no-win no-fee, and unions - they will not support a case that does not have good prospects of succeeding. So your option, your only option, is to represent yourself, which you are entitled to do. However, as you have been warned, do not expect your employer to nominate you for employee of the year if you do. What is far more likely is that the tolerances shown over your performance will disappear, and any other minor offences will suddenly become disciplinaries - and you will be dismissed on entirely fair grounds.

mandragora_2

Most solicitors will offer a feee half hour to 45 mins of legal advice. Why not find out who the best employment lawyer in your area is, see if they do a free initial interview, get your papers and thought s in order then go and see them, and make the best use of the time they're giving you. Probably a afr better place for advice than here because you can give them all the ins and outs of your case. Then, if you don't like theri advice, you can leave and will have cost you nothing, but will at least have satified your curiosity.