Do you HAVE to accept a warning?

marybelle01

andygb wrote: »

Wrong, very wrong!
I suggest that the OP decides to get legal advice from a qualified employment solicitor, rather than listen to the ramblings of some people on this forum, who obviously have no idea of what they are talking about.
I would not have suggested this if I had not had direct experience of it a few years ago. The case in question involved a member of staff being bullied by the management, then being given a warning. The member of staff had logged the times and dates of incidents and meetings, and was signed off work by his GP suffering from extreme depression. He then presented the facts to an employment solicitor (he had not resigned at that time) and the solicitor then became the only person contacting the firm.
Yes, the employee left the company (would you really want to work for a company if they were trying to force you to leave?), after it was decided that a "Compromise agreement" could be reached and an out of court settlement agreed upon (£15K and legal costs paid by the firm). This gave the employee time to sort out his life, get better, and find another job.

To quote - wrong, very wrong.

Obtaining a compromise agreement is no indication of having a legal case for constructive (or any other kind of) dismissal. But I would agree that the OP's friend should get qualified legal advice and not base their decisions on the ramblings of one "I heard this story" poster who has no idea what they are talking about.

ohreally

Constructive dismissal
A constructive dismissal is one where the employee resigns but claims that the employer’s conduct left no alternative. The conduct must amount to a serious breach of an express or implied contract term, and the resignation must be on account of the breach.
To claim constructive dismissal, three elements must be present:
• the employer must have fundamentally breached the contract;
• the employee must have left as a consequence of that breach; and
• there has to have been no significant delay between the breach and the employee’s departure.


CA changes the situation somewhat.

andygb

marybelle01 wrote: »

To quote - wrong, very wrong.

Obtaining a compromise agreement is no indication of having a legal case for constructive (or any other kind of) dismissal. But I would agree that the OP's friend should get qualified legal advice and not base their decisions on the ramblings of one "I heard this story" poster who has no idea what they are talking about.

You are a "know it all", because I am basing this on first hand personal experience of a factual situation, not second hand knowledge. This is not a "heard this story" scenario from someone down the pub.
My last post on this subject, as I was only trying to give some advice based on a true personal experience.

PS - I have worked in the legal sector for over 25 years.

andygb

ohreally wrote: »

Constructive dismissal
A constructive dismissal is one where the employee resigns but claims that the employer’s conduct left no alternative. The conduct must amount to a serious breach of an express or implied contract term, and the resignation must be on account of the breach.
To claim constructive dismissal, three elements must be present:
• the employer must have fundamentally breached the contract;
• the employee must have left as a consequence of that breach; and
• there has to have been no significant delay between the breach and the employee’s departure.


CA changes the situation somewhat.[/QUOTE

Yes it does change the situation considerably, because if an employer has not taken care and due diligence when taking discipliary action, then the mere threat/suggestion of constructive dismissal (and a speedy resignation) can force the employer's hand.
It all depends in this case, whether or not the OP really wants to continue working for the company.

vax2002

It is their way of telling him they would rather he look for another job.

MrSnuggles

andygb wrote: »

You are a "know it all", because I am basing this on first hand personal experience of a factual situation, not second hand knowledge. This is not a "heard this story" scenario from someone down the pub.
My last post on this subject, as I was only trying to give some advice based on a true personal experience.

PS - I have worked in the legal sector for over 25 years.

The difference is that case you mentioned, the employee was bullied by management. This employee here wasn't bullied, and in fact participated in a disruptive argument with a fellow colleague. Employer won't be paying anything in this case even if the employee quits and tries to sue, because he's the one in the wrong.

DCodd

MrSnuggles wrote: »

The difference is that case you mentioned, the employee was bullied by management. This employee here wasn't bullied, and in fact participated in a disruptive argument with a fellow colleague. Employer won't be paying anything in this case even if the employee quits and tries to sue, because he's the one in the wrong.

To be fair there seems to be a lot of speculation here. We have no Idea which Industry they work in or where the argument took place, neither do we know what the argument was about nor what triggered it. We also do not know the history of the situation between the employees or their history with their employer.

marybelle01

andygb wrote: »

You are a "know it all", because I am basing this on first hand personal experience of a factual situation, not second hand knowledge. This is not a "heard this story" scenario from someone down the pub.
My last post on this subject, as I was only trying to give some advice based on a true personal experience.

PS - I have worked in the legal sector for over 25 years.

Working in the legal sector doesn't make you an employment law expert - people who deal with house sales also work in the legal sector. And yes, on this one I may not know it all but I know more than you. A speedy resignation because you don't like the fact that you got disciplined will not get you a payout, it will get you unemployed. One story, whether true or not, does not make your advice correct or sensible.

andygb

DCodd wrote: »

To be fair there seems to be a lot of speculation here. We have no Idea which Industry they work in or where the argument took place, neither do we know what the argument was about nor what triggered it. We also do not know the history of the situation between the employees or their history with their employer.

Absolutely correct. Everyone seems to be assuming that it is the person in question who is at fault - he may well be, but we DO NOT KNOW!
We also have no idea how long he has worked there, what his work record was prior to this incident, and whether or not the management were aware that he did not get on with the other person.
If we take the facts presented at face value, then it would seem that the company wish to pressurise him into leaving. If this is the case, then there are various courses which the employee could take prior to considering whether or not to resign, and one of these is consulting an employment lawyer.

Sambucus_Nigra

andygb wrote: »

If we take the facts presented at face value, then it would seem that the company wish to pressurise him into leaving.

Does it? It seems to me that they have just given him a warning for arguing. How exactly do you jump from getting a warning to being pressurised into leaving?