UGENT - Sacked whilst on Probationary Period???

welshbluebelle

I started working for my new employer 4 weeks ago and was thrilled to have found a job after 7 months of bringing up my son alone on state benefits!

I was employed straight away as it conincided with other colleagues holidays and to help cover for them
The manageress taught me how to open, run the store, cash up and close down the store within the first 2 weeks. She then decided to leave me in charge of the store whilst she went on holiday for a week.

She came back from holiday this morning, rung me at home and has said that so much went wrong when she was away and has decided I am now unsatisfactory for the position and gave me a weeks notice over the phone. AS far as I am aware, nothing went wrong and none of the other staff had a problem with me.

She also states that a phone call is sufficient and does not need to adhere to disciplinary procedures as I am on a probationary period. I wasn't aware that I was?! But if I was, I am finding it very hard to beleive that she would let a probationer run the business for an entire week in her absence and not ask the already employed staff who have been there longer than myself!

Does this sound as though I was only employed to cover the staff's holidays??? I know I have no emplyment rights but have they breached their contract and do I have a leg to stand on. I haven't been given a contract but am led to beleive there is a verbal contract from the minute someone accepts the job position.

I am so upset as I now have to go back onto state benefits and as I have not been employed for longer than 6 weeks will have to pay back my back to work grants and extended housing benefit and council tax run on payments.

PLEASE can anyone help?

CIS

She also states that a phone call is sufficient and does not need to adhere to disciplinary procedures as I am on a probationary period

Probationary periods have no real basis in law - with less than 12 months service you can be dismissed for almost any reason without any rights.

It sounds like they may have wanted someone just cover the holidays.

vax2002

Time for a piece of your mind, give her the lot, it will make you feel much better trust me, a good dressing down in front of the whole squad is just what some of these jump up folk need.
walking out with your pride is worth a million references, plus you wont have to work a week under the gun.

welshbluebelle

Thankyou for your reply.

I have tried looknig online for some advice but haven't had much luck really. I was under the impression that surely they have to follow disciplinary procedures first such as verbal and written warnings before dismissal?

DCFC79

Sounds a bit harsh. sounds like its as CIS says,

you can be let go for whatever reason within the probation period,

Uncertain

welshbluebelle wrote: »

I have tried looknig online for some advice but haven't had much luck really. I was under the impression that surely they have to follow disciplinary procedures first such as verbal and written warnings before dismissal?

Sadly no, they are now only "guidelines" in any case.

As other have stated, during the first year you have no recourse to claim unfair dismissal (apart from a few special reasons such as discrimination) so it hardly matters whether they follow procedure or not.

You are entitled to a week's notice (or pay in lieu) plus payment for the holiday you will have accrued since you started which would be just over one day for each two weeks worked including the notice period. So, assuming you have not taken any holiday you are entitled to three days pay for this. Don't mention the holiday until the notice period is up or they could try to make you take it during the week's notice!

Should they fail to pay the notice or holiday you could take a claim for that to a tribunal regardless of length of service.

KiKi

welshbluebelle wrote: »

She also states that a phone call is sufficient and does not need to adhere to disciplinary procedures as I am on a probationary period. I wasn't aware that I was?! But if I was, I am finding it very hard to beleive that she would let a probationer run the business for an entire week in her absence and not ask the already employed staff who have been there longer than myself!

Does this sound as though I was only employed to cover the staff's holidays??? I know I have no emplyment rights but have they breached their contract and do I have a leg to stand on. I haven't been given a contract but am led to beleive there is a verbal contract from the minute someone accepts the job position.

I am so upset as I now have to go back onto state benefits and as I have not been employed for longer than 6 weeks will have to pay back my back to work grants and extended housing benefit and council tax run on payments.

PLEASE can anyone help?

She sounds like a terrible manager in the first place, and I'm so sorry this has happened to you.

In employment terms, she has simply dismissed you. She doesn't need a reason (and she hasn't dismissed you for discriminatory reasons). She doesn't need to follow any disciplinary procedures here - she can simply decide she doesn't need you any more.

Yes, you have a contract by virtue of being there and being paid. But there is no breach of contract here; she hasn't breached a term of your contract, just given notice.

Assuming you've been employed for a month, you must be paid one week in lieu of notice (or asked to work your notice, one of the two). You must also be paid any outstanding holiday pay which is likely to be around two and a half days.

You can try and negotiate, apologise for any issues, ask to be trained properly on what to do etc, but TBH it sounds like she's a nightmare and doesn't want you there. Treat this as experience, and try and move on from what's been a horrible time for you.

ETA - oops, cross-posted with Uncertain (that'll teach me to start posting then switch over to 'Strictly Come Dancing').

Best of luck.
KiKi

bluenoseam

Firstly, "As far as i was aware" does not equate to there having been nothing wrong - admittedly her leaving you to run the shop after 2 weeks was a bit ropey, but ultimately the situation is that you have limited at best rights, frankly if you'd turned up one day and looked at you and said "ok, you're fired" then they'd have been legally entitled to do so, shockingly that if i'm not wrong is about to be increased from the first 12 months to the first 2 years. I think in this case it would be best to put it down to experience & leave well alone, no point in kicking off and getting worked up over it, you've learned the harsh way that what you think is "unfair" is still 100% legal, as harsh as that sounds it's the grim reality of the world.

ceebeeby

Something very similar has just happened to DD, however, she has been there 3 months. They phoned her and said don't come back - when she asked if she'd done something wrong (anything at all) they said no - they were getting rid of all the people returning to school / university.

Do they owe her a weeks pay in lieu of notice - and should this be based on the average weekly hours she has worked - of course, there is no signed contract!? Can someone point me in the direction of where I can find this from a legality perspective? Also, they were cooking the books in terms of tax etc. etc. at my insistence she phoned them up and requested her P45 to which there was some umming and ahhhing .... and after I mentioned the inland revenue, she was assured it would be ready for Tuesday (this'll be interesting!)

Exceptionally unusually for me (I can let by-gones be by-gones normally) I'd quite happily see this chap squirm uncomfortably!

KiKi

ceebeeby wrote: »

Do they owe her a weeks pay in lieu of notice - and should this be based on the average weekly hours she has worked - of course, there is no signed contract!?

There is no legal entitlement to a contract, so whether she has one - signed or not - makes absolutely no difference. She was legally entitled to a statement of particulars, but since she no longer works there there's little she can do about it.

Yes, she should receive a week in lieu, assuming she was an employee.

Can someone point me in the direction of where I can find this from a legality perspective? Also, they were cooking the books in terms of tax etc. etc. at my insistence she phoned them up and requested her P45 to which there was some umming and ahhhing .... and after I mentioned the inland revenue, she was assured it would be ready for Tuesday (this'll be interesting!)

Exceptionally unusually for me (I can let by-gones be by-gones normally) I'd quite happily see this chap squirm uncomfortably!

The direct.gov website (the employment section) is very good for all your basics.

KiKi

Uncertain

KiKi wrote: »

There is no legal entitlement to a contract, so whether she has one - signed or not - makes absolutely no difference. She was legally entitled to a statement of particulars, but since she no longer works there there's little she can do about it.

Yes, she should receive a week in lieu, assuming she was an employee.

Well actually, if they fail to pay the week in lieu (and accrued holiday pay) and she has to take this to a tribunal she could add the failure to provide written particulars to the claim.

The tribunal could (doesn't have to but may well) make an additional award.

You can no longer make this claim on its own.