Advice Please - can my OH be sacked?

hushpuppy

My OH has been employed by the same company for nearly 10 years but for the last few months she hasn't been very happy and wants to move on.

One of the reasons for doing so is the increasing short temper of her boss.

She has never been given or signed a formal contract of employment.

She intends to tell her boss on return after the Christmas break that she will be leaving at the end of March. She feels loyalty to the company, hence the 3 months notice so it does not leave him in the lurch and to give him time to find a replacement.

My question is, given his short temper he may simply say to her, 'you can't stay until the end of March I want you to leave next week.'

Is he able to do this?

Does she have any rights given she has no contract?

Thanks in advance.

Uncertain

hushpuppy wrote: »

My question is, given his short temper he may simply say to her, 'you can't stay until the end of March I want you to leave next week.'

Is he able to do this?

Does she have any rights given she has no contract?

Thanks in advance.

With ten years service the firm would have to give her 10 weeks notice or pay in lieu. If they fail to do this it would be a simple claim to get the money via an employment tribunal.

In the absence of a contract (which doesn't have to be written to be valid) she it technically only obliged to give the firm one weeks notice regardless of her length of service. This particular rule doesn't work both ways.

However lots of things make up her "contract". For example if it could be shown that there was a general requirement in the firm for staff to give, say, a month's notice it could be argued that she knew this and it applies to her.

Acc72

Uncertain wrote: »

With ten years service the firm would have to give her 10 weeks notice or pay in lieu. If they fail to do this it would be a simple claim to get the money via an employment tribunal.

Although I am sure that this is legally correct, is it really practical to rely on this ?

i.e. there is a chance that the employer may say "leave now" and your wife would have to go through all the stress of going through an ET.

She either wants to leave or she doesn't. If she does, then she should give them one weeks notice and move on in life.

It is very admirable that you wife doesn't want to leave her employer in the lurch, but it sounds as though she has a doubt in the back of her mind that they they may do something to leave her in the lurch ?

Depending on how difficult her employers are, she should also make sure that she has used up her holiday entitlement.

Yes, I know that the employer cannot withold this but again you don't really want the hassle of going to an ET to recover this.

It is really interesting reading the threads on this board, and I have noticed that there is often a difference between what is "right" and "wrong", or "fair/unfair" etc. what is the law and what actually happens in practice. Even when there is legal recourse, it is not always the best or most practical action to take.

Jarndyce

Acc72 wrote: »

It is really interesting reading the threads on this board, and I have noticed that there is often a difference between what is "right" and "wrong", or "fair/unfair" etc. what is the law and what actually happens in practice. Even when there is legal recourse, it is not always the best or most practical action to take.

That is a very subjective view. Those of us who move in legal circles are comfortable with the process so we would have no qualms about submitting and running with such a claim. Others think the whole process is so mystifying and stressful they wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.

The truth is somewhere in between, but for confident, savvy people who are able to read and apply instructions, then the tribunal claim process should hold no fear for them.

Uncertain

Acc72 wrote: »

Although I am sure that this is legally correct, is it really practical to rely on this ?

i.e. there is a chance that the employer may say "leave now" and your wife would have to go through all the stress of going through an ET.

She either wants to leave or she doesn't. If she does, then she should give them one weeks notice and move on in life.

A week is very little notice for somebody who has been there for ten years. It would not surprise me if a "difficult" firm would try and argue that a longer period is a contractual requirement perhaps by producing a document and claiming it was issued when she started. This could then get messy.

It would be most unlikely that she would have to go anywhere near a tribunal. Once she issued the claim (completely free) ACAS would become involved and it would become obvious to the firm they wouldn't have a leg to stand on. She could add failing to provide written particulars of employment to the claim and may get some extra money.

jfh7gwa

hushpuppy wrote: »

She feels loyalty to the company, hence the 3 months notice so it does not leave him in the lurch and to give him time to find a replacement.

Whilst I know your wife doesn't want to burn bridges, is giving a quarter's notice of intention to leave a good idea?

It doesn't sound like your wife is a dept head / senior management / head of sales, and 3 months notice is what that level of employee is expected to give..

What's the norm in your wife's type of job?

What benefit is it to her, to reveal that she's leaving with so much notice? What if she decides to leave a couple of months later, or wants to leave a month before? What if she can't find another job?

I seriously would think about not giving all the power to her employer here - loyalty and liking the business owner goes so far, but in few cases would extend to such high notice periods unless it's legally required, IMHO.

i should probably add that i've seen where this can go wrong, btw, which is perhaps why i'm so bias - my sister worked in an admin/PA role for quite a few years, for several managers in the same dept. she ended up covering a maternity leave PA role for a total pig of a boss, decided to leave after six months, but gave her old boss (dept head) notice of twice what was needed.. 2 months, instead of her contract's one month. almost 2 weeks later my BIL ended up getting fired, my sister had to stay in that job by negotiating with her old boss to take back the resignation. the ironic thing? she's still there, 2 years later, whilst BIL had to take a wage cut in his next job. it's not made for a happy work situation at all and she's desperate to find another job at her current salary/bonus level. i did try to warn her not to confuse loyalty to her old boss with what's best for her, but ho hum, it doesn't help anyone to say "i told you so", really.

getmore4less

Why not address the issue, there must be something causing the change.

Acc72

getmore4less wrote: »

Why not address the issue, there must be something causing the change.

This is the best advice.

Re-reading the OP, the employee has been with the employer for 10 years (so assume that the employee must like working there ?), but she has not been happy for the last few months.

What caused this - change of manager, change of role etc. ?

If your wife could understand exactly what is making her unhappy then she can look at ways to resolve the problem.

The worst case scenario is that she ends up leaving the company - but she is considering that anyway, so has nothing to lose and can only gain.

Acc72

Jarndyce wrote: »

That is a very subjective view. Those of us who move in legal circles are comfortable with the process so we would have no qualms about submitting and running with such a claim. Others think the whole process is so mystifying and stressful they wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.

The truth is somewhere in between, but for confident, savvy people who are able to read and apply instructions, then the tribunal claim process should hold no fear for them.

Yes, I agree with what you are saying.

What I mean is that for most people, going through such an alien process would not be the preferred option and it may be better for the employee in the long term to avoid this if they could work things out before it got to that stage.

Eg. if an employee knows that they will leave a company in 3 months (and that their company can be "awkward") then I would say that they should make sure that they have used up their holiday entitlement.

Although the employee could take them to an ET to recover the holiday pay if it was not paid, is it worth the hassle in real life (for some/most people without the legal knowledge or experience of going through an ET) ?

DVardysShadow

getmore4less wrote: »

Why not address the issue, there must be something causing the change.

Hmm. In principle, this would be good. But there is the possibility [reading between the lines] that this might aggravate the situation and precipitate a worse departure. I say this because OP's OH is departing so reluctantly and so concerned to do the right thing.

Jarndyce

Acc72 wrote: »

Although the employee could take them to an ET to recover the holiday pay if it was not paid, is it worth the hassle in real life (for some/most people without the legal knowledge or experience of going through an ET) ?

My point is that everyone will answer that question differently and for themselves - dependding on the amount of money involved and the actual amouint of hassle it would cause them. You can't just generalise and say it wouldn't be worth the hassle for some/most people. You don't necessarily need knowledge or experience to take out an ET claim.