Unfair dismissal of an Apprentice

Dunroamin

NikNox wrote: »

Apprenticeship should be commended, not least because the wages are so poor! He was being sub-contracted out at £40 per hour to the company, but was being paid £3 per hour. Okay, that's normal practice and no-one would ever say that his company shouldn't have earned money from him, but he was being contracted out as a qualified carpenter when he isn't qualified. .

Was he employed by the company or was he actually a sub contractor?

Sambucus_Nigra

NikNox wrote: »

Thank you. Very interesting. Sadly he was not a union member :-(. I think we can safely say that not fitting a latch correctly or hanging a door correctly, particularly by an apprentice, constitutes gross misconduct.

Not if they had him working alone.

If he was an apprentice then he should have been supervised, employed as an apprentice and been paid the correct wage. Seems like they failed on all 3 counts.

I'd definitely take it further, even if it's just to make a point.

NikNox

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Not if they had him working alone.

If he was an apprentice then he should have been supervised, employed as an apprentice and been paid the correct wage. Seems like they failed on all 3 counts.

I'd definitely take it further, even if it's just to make a point.

Thanks. We often thought he shouldn't have been working alone, but I think he didn't raise this with his employer because he saw it as a positive thing, that they trusted him, which I can understand. But, when he was on call I did tell him he should raise it because of the safety aspect. The company has the maintenance contract for the local housing association, so he was entering dwellings of some very undesirable characters, addicts etc. He went to one property to fix a window that had been smashed at 10pm one night and a woman was injecting heroin into her foot!

Raksha

Did the company have a 'lone workers' policy?

McKneff

You still dont seem to be taking on board the fact that he could end up being branded a troublemaker and end up being a trouble maker signing on.

You may say it the morality of it but morals dont get you a job or pay the bills.

To be honest, sit him down in front of this thread and get him to read every single post and then let him decide what to do.

NikNox

Raksha wrote: »

Did the company have a 'lone workers' policy?

I don't know. I know they could refuse to enter a property if it was in such a state it would be considered bad for their health (covered in faeces, human or otherwise, or filled with rubbish), and there were some properties they were only permitted to enter in two's (occupants considered to be dangerous), but I have to admit I have had concerns. He came back one day and said that his work mate had gone to a house to replace the hot water heater. To remove the old one he'd placed his hand on top to take it from it's housing and felt several used needles and syringes on top of the heater. At that point he refused to carry on and left the property. However, as I pointed out to my son, some of the properties they enter are so messy that they have to pick up and move piles of newspapers or clothing, pots and pans etc from kitchen worktops, and if used needles were hidden amongst these things they were at risk from needlestick injury. I told him to find out what the Company's needlestick policy was, and if they could be provided with protective clothing and sharps bins, and also to find out whether they needed (as I believed they should be) immunised against Hepatitis B (who knows what they were coming into contact with). He said he asked and was told there wasn't a policy, so I told him, purely as his mum, that if he went into a house which he believed could present a danger from needles, he was to leave immediately and refuse to go there again. Appalling, any employer whose employees could come into contact with used needles should have a policy and protective clothing available to their employees!

He also had to attend drug raids on occasion, to repair and make good any busted down doors. But, he didn't worry too much about that as he was always in attendance with the Police and therefore felt safe.

NikNox

McKneff wrote: »

You still dont seem to be taking on board the fact that he could end up being branded a troublemaker and end up being a trouble maker signing on.

You may say it the morality of it but morals dont get you a job or pay the bills.

To be honest, sit him down in front of this thread and get him to read every single post and then let him decide what to do.

He's read the thread, and, like me, believes his rights should be upheld. Morality is important in this day and age, that's what we believe as a family. I personally don't think he will be branded a troublemaker, but if he does then he will have to take it on the chin but know he did the right thing, if it appears he has been dismissed unfairly that is.

Sambucus_Nigra

Raksha wrote: »

Did the company have a 'lone workers' policy?

Being a signed up apprentice isn't the same as just being employed - there are enhanced conditions attached. OP - If your son's apprenticeship is with the CITB - give them a call and ask them what the procedure is to complain about the employer and how to take it further. The employer will have agreed up front to provide enough evidence for him to complete his full NVQ and MA - it's a term of signing up in the first place. The provider should not have failed an NVQ [you can't fail an NVQ you can only ever pass it when you become competent] so you can also complain about the provider. Make waves with the CITB, the provider [put a complaint in and tell them that you are going to go to the awarding body if you don't hear back from them with a solution to this], and the employer - it's a tripartite agreement between college, you [as a parent, you should have signed this off at the start] and the employer. It's one instance where [because you are the parent and have signed off the initial agreement] you CAN start making complaints about the way your son has been treated.

http://www.cskills.org/apprenticeships/

p.s. - even with a lone worker policy, an apprentice should NOT be working unsupervised until they have reached NVQ L3.

NikNox

Thank you. I did indeed sign when he started the Apprenticeship (forgot about that). I don't mind being branded a troublemaker

Sambucus_Nigra

NikNox wrote: »

Thank you. I did indeed sign when he started the Apprenticeship (forgot about that). I don't mind being branded a troublemaker

Good. The employer will have had a fair amount of grant money from the CITB to pay for the Apprenticeship, so speak to the CITB [he should have been given a NET adviser as a contact, so get in touch in the morning and make waves].

Make sure his apprenticeship is transferred so that he can complete, just in case it hasn't been done. It needs doing 'officially' thought the NET adviserm not just through the college.