Question about the unfair dismissal law changing to 2 years.

*Chattie*

OP you would do better to concentrate on doing your job well when you finally start it than worry about being dismissed within 1/2 years.

ps no-one is safe if there is good reason to dismiss you

BrettMorganxD

*Chattie* wrote: »

OP you would do better to concentrate on doing your job well when you finally start it than worry about being dismissed within 1/2 years.

ps no-one is safe if there is good reason to dismiss you

I did my last job, very well. But my ex employer dismissed me 2 days before the year was up

dickydonkin

*Chattie* wrote: »

OP you would do better to concentrate on doing your job well when you finally start it than worry about being dismissed within 1/2 years.

ps no-one is safe if there is good reason to dismiss you

And I agree ..........if there is good reason..... so what difference will adding another year make? Why fix something that isn't broken? If there is a valid reason to dismiss someone after 12 months of employment I have no qualms with that whatsoever - and nor should the employer or employee for that matter.

You can dress this proposal up anyway you like - but it is this 'governments' way of pandering to the whims of their backers to allow employers to extend the timescale where they can get rid of someone very easily without redress.

One of the reasons given by this 'government' for proposing this change was that it was costing companies a lot of money to defend malicious unfair dismissal claims. If that is the case, then would it not be better to charge a fee for submitting a case to tribunal which would then be refundable if the unfair dismissal claim was proven?

Surely, an employer should know if the person he has hired is suitable for the job within 12 months.

SarEl

dickydonkin wrote: »

would it not be better to charge a fee for submitting a case to tribunal which would then be refundable if the unfair dismissal claim was proven?

But of course the government couldn't introduce a rule like that because it pretty much already exists. if there is no prpspect of the claim being just then tribunals can (and do) levy deposits. I think this is fair. I would oppose a general deposit scheme because if it were too high then it would simply become another case of the law only being for those that can afford it; and no matter how low it is set there will be people with just cases who cannot afford the deposit, just as there are those who cannot afford lawyers to represent them. Simply because someone looses does not mean that their claim is malicious or poor - there are always loosers. What I find more interesting is that the argument for this is that "poor employers" can't afford the costs involved in defending a tribunal. But "poor employees" can't either and that leads to many of them having to represent themselves because they cannot afford a lawyer and there is no legal aid availabel for representation any more. Wouldn't the fairer position be to tell employers that if they can't afford lawyers then they should represent themselves. After all - if they are certain that they have done the right and lawful thing it shouldn't be any harder for them to do it than it is for employees.

zzzLazyDaisy

dickydonkin wrote: »

A would it not be better to charge a fee for submitting a case to tribunal which would then be refundable if the unfair dismissal claim was proven?

One of the proposals is that a fee of £250 for lodging a tribunal claim will be introduced with effect from April 2013. Personally I am against this unless there is also a fee exemption for people on means tested benefits (as there is in the small claims court). £250 is a lot of money for someone who has lost their job and is existing on JSA.

zzzLazyDaisy

SarEl wrote: »

To be fair Lazydaisy is right - since the law has not been changed then we don't know exactly what it will say. But I think best guesses are allowed, especially since this does not require a new law - simply an amendment to the existing one. As in "delete one and replace with two". It isn't likely to be too taxing to draft it!

I agree... however I was rather hoping that between now and then, some adviser to the government would remember the Seymour-Smith debacle of the 1990's and think again...

Perhaps that is too much to ask for - but if the idea is to reduce claims and relieve pressure on overburdened employers and the tribunal system, I don't think having 9 years of claims stacked up to the rafters on hold while another challenge wends its weary way to the ECJ is the best way to go about it :A

BrettMorganxD

dickydonkin wrote: »

And I agree ..........if there is good reason..... so what difference will adding another year make? Why fix something that isn't broken? If there is a valid reason to dismiss someone after 12 months of employment I have no qualms with that whatsoever - and nor should the employer or employee for that matter.

You can dress this proposal up anyway you like - but it is this 'governments' way of pandering to the whims of their backers to allow employers to extend the timescale where they can get rid of someone very easily without redress.

One of the reasons given by this 'government' for proposing this change was that it was costing companies a lot of money to defend malicious unfair dismissal claims. If that is the case, then would it not be better to charge a fee for submitting a case to tribunal which would then be refundable if the unfair dismissal claim was proven?

Surely, an employer should know if the person he has hired is suitable for the job within 12 months.

Exactly. They should know for sure within 12 month, or even 6. If the employee isn't suitable. Some employers (mine ex-employer especially) choose to dismiss people just "because". Bad day, got up on wrong side of bed. Etc

dickydonkin

What I find more interesting is that the argument for this is that "poor employers" can't afford the costs involved in defending a tribunal. But "poor employees" can't either and that leads to many of them having to represent themselves because they cannot afford a lawyer and there is no legal aid availabel for representation any more.

Which is a valid point of course - but certainly in the unfair dismissal case of my wife a couple of years ago - she was able to use a lawyer of her choice (subject to conditions) paid for by virtue of paying a small premium on our home insurance.

As for the 'poor employer', he too was covered by some kind of insurance that paid for legal costs incurred by employees litigation.

Maybe that is the way forward - I don't know. Due to the financial predicament of many of our unions today, personally I would now rather cancel my fees and pay an additional insurance premium - and that is coming from a former Union Branch Secretary.

My concern is that workers safety and employment rights are already being compromised by this government and their kow towing to corporate pressure to 'lessen the burden' on employing people only confirms to me that there will only be one loser out of all of this.

SarEl

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

I agree... however I was rather hoping that between now and then, some adviser to the government would remember the Seymour-Smith debacle of the 1990's and think again...

Perhaps that is too much to ask for - but if the idea is to reduce claims and relieve pressure on overburdened employers and the tribunal system, I don't think having 9 years of claims stacked up to the rafters on hold while another challenge wends its weary way to the ECJ is the best way to go about it :A

Yes, but I am afraid that European legislation has also moved on - as has European law and attitudes, and whilst in some areas of the law they are advanced on the UK, it tends not to be in this area of law. Europe seems to have tended towards the "in-work" parts of legislative / employment practice rather than dismissal practices, and much as I would like to think otherwise, I think the economic situation has a heavy bearing on how courts rule on these matters.

Also, it would be most interesting to see the extent to which the gender disparity has changed, if indeed it has. But I suspect that it may have done - improved maternity provision must surely have had an impact (one hopes!!!), combined with the increase of women in the workforce (albeit in largely lower paid and part-time positions) due to economic pressures. Much as I would like to think this government is stupid (and indeed, think they are) I cannot see how they will have failed to exercise some care in this matter so as not to end up in the same position. Although it would be entirely amusing if they hadn't I'm sure we are all looking forward to seeing the amended legislation anyway, and will be checking for any possibility of de-railment!