Unfair Dismissal on Racist Grounds?

Justin_Scotland

Badger_Lady wrote: »

Is this a possibility here? I felt that her employment should not be terminated until she agreed to the compromise... but they have served her one month's notice before (or at the same time as) sending the agreement..? What's her best way to play for time?

I'm not familiar with the exact circumstances for the person who did it at my work. I know it was in relation to a compromise agreement that my company had offered. They continued to attend their place of work as they weren't accepting the first compromise agreement that was being offered. It depends on what if anything has been discussed and agreed by your friend and the employer already. As far as I'm aware until the compromise agreement is signed then effectively you are still an employee of the firm and therefore can continue to attend your contracted place of work. Normally a compromise agreement has a deadline for acceptance before the employer will proceed down the statutory redundancy route. (so the risk is your friend would only get the statutory redundancy payment by declining the compromise agreement). However the risk to the Employer is that your friend pursues an unfair dismissal claim and they then become liable for additional legal fees greater than the amount that may be agreeable up front. (There is a very minor risk that your friend would be liable for her own and the Employers legal fees should the Employment Tribunal feel the case was bought about unnecessarily and maliciously.)

As mentioned before She should seek out specialist employment solicitors advice as the next step.

Emmzi

I've been on the sticky end of one and although the CA in draft had a nominal date we had a bit of back and forth on the terms and the actual date I signed was the leaving date.

Single most important thing: agreed reference. I'd get her writing her own now.

fluffy70

another man (named) would be taking over her role.

everyone is missing one crucial point here - in redundancy it is the ROLE that is being discarded. NOT the individual carrying out that role and leaving a gap for someone else to step into that role.

If your friend is being told that she is being made redundant then it must be because the role has gone. If the role including job description is still there when she leaves then they have dismissed her as a person and they will have needed to given her a breakdown of why she is no longer required. Without this she can claim for unfair dismissal. And there is no need for her to belong to a union for this - she can ask ACAS to represent her or approach a solicitor. Although Unions do have rules on length of membership (usually 4 weeks) before they can represent and often will not represent if the issue has been one that already existed at the time of your joining, a quiet word to the local branch secretary can sometimes work wonders and they will represent and support

Badger_Lady

fluffy70 that certain rang alarm bells for me. There was literally 1 week (5 working days) between the man being moved into her division and given a similar role to her, and then her being told that she was no longer needed.

Is that enough time for them to say that his change of role is unrelated to the redundancy of her role? Or can we declare that she was replaced by someone who had previously not done similar work at a similar level or even in the same division of the company?

Valli

I asked is she is in a union -

Badger_Lady wrote: »

Unfortunately not - we don't have one covering our company.

Even if you have no formally agreed union representing some, or all, employees in a company there is NOTHING to stop anyone joining an appropriate trade union. Even better if a few of you decided to join the same one!

If colleagues are willing to assert that certain events have happened I would be getting statements signed and witnessed - just in case;)

unsure

I may be a bit out of date but when I was a union official some years ago it always had to be posts that were made redundant not an individual - effectively an employer says that since circumstances have changed nobody is required to do a specific job any longer. They can't or couldn't say we are making X redundant and we will give Y her job.
They would have to sack her (..with good reasons or face the possibility of Unfair Dismissal) to do as you suggest.

If the claims of racism can be substantiated that would certainly strengthen her claim ( and racial discrimination is more damaging to an employer financially and reputationally).

I used to work for an American employer in the UK and i worked for a time in the US. It is certainly the case that US employees have fewer legal employment rights and that can lead to some very high-handed attitudes from employers towards employees. My American employer in the UK got into trouble for trying to treat all staff as casuals rather than employees for example. Just because an employer thinks they can behave as they wish doesn't mean they actually can in legal terms!

Your friends needs to take some good professional advice before agreeing to anything. If she is in a union that would be the place to start. If not Citizens Advice or an employment lawyer.

alleycat`

Badger_Lady wrote: »

fluffy70 that certain rang alarm bells for me. There was literally 1 week (5 working days) between the man being moved into her division and given a similar role to her, and then her being told that she was no longer needed.

Is that enough time for them to say that his change of role is unrelated to the redundancy of her role? Or can we declare that she was replaced by someone who had previously not done similar work at a similar level or even in the same division of the company?

My suspicion is they will use the argument that the role she does was rolled up into another role (with more required skills). If she doesn't possess those then the role of just doing what she was doing is now "redundant".

The language used is probably very important in this regard but i suspect they'll argue it doesn't exist as a "whole person" role.

I'm not sure what, if any, time limit exists with regards to new people taking on part of a role.

jackyann

Not necessarily helpful to OP but I second all that has been said about belonging to a union. They can be very helpful, and the right to belong is enshrined in law. I am sad that 170+ years on from Tolpuddle, our kids are not being taught proper history and about the struggle for equality (not as if it has been won either!)
But I digress - good luck badger lady - and please make sure you look after yourself as well as your friend.

SarEl

jackyann wrote: »

Not necessarily helpful to OP but I second all that has been said about belonging to a union. They can be very helpful, and the right to belong is enshrined in law. I am sad that 170+ years on from Tolpuddle, our kids are not being taught proper history and about the struggle for equality (not as if it has been won either!)
.

I am in complete agreement with this statement. It is a crime that so few people, children and adults, have the faintest notion about what people did, and gave up, to obtain the rights that they now so casually allow to be taken from them without a fight.

jackyann

Don't it only go to show, you never know what you've got till it's gone?
They paved Paradise & put up a parking lot.............