Sackable offence??

Sambucus_Nigra

ILW wrote: »

It really is not that simple, she may already be talking to a no win no fee lawyer.

What would she be talking to him about?

Uncertain

ILW wrote: »

It really is not that simple, she may already be talking to a no win no fee lawyer.

You really do read some rubbish on here at times!

A few facts......

This person has been employed for less than two years.

There is no suggestion (as far as we have been told) of discrimination in one of the few areas protected by law e.g race, sex, trade union membership etc.

There is no longer a hard and fast requirement to follow statutory disciplinary procedures. They are now merely guidelines.

The OP could simply tell the employee that her services are no longer required and issue her with one week's statutory notice. He is under no obligation to offer any reason at all.

Alternatively he could opt to pay her one week's wages in lieu of notice and tell her to leave immediately. If he does this he would be advised to do it at the end of a shift as notice, technically, begins the DAY AFTER it is issued.

Either way she would also be entitled to payment for any untaken holiday. However, with care the employer could probably use his power to insist that she takes some or all of this holiday towards the end of the notice week.

What he probably could not do now is the call her recent behaviour gross misconduct and dismiss without notice. The reason I say this is that he did not act immediately and has allowed her to return to work.

Unless the employee is able to make some realistic allegations of discrimination then it is hard to see any no win no fee lawyer touching this with a bargepole.

ILW

The point is that if you have not dotted the Is and crossed the Ts a disgruntled employee can make a case which is very likely to fail but can cost the business thousands. Discrimination, bullying, harrasment etc do not have to be proved to start proceedings.

Ashles

ILW wrote: »

The point is that if you have not dotted the Is and crossed the Ts a disgruntled employee can make a case which is very likely to fail but can cost the business thousands. Discrimination, bullying, harrasment etc do not have to be proved to start proceedings.

This makes no sense. You seem to be agreeing that the employee has no real case but can still start a frivolous claim - well obviously she can. So can anyone at any time. But such baseless claims are not something employers should spend their time worrying about.

The company (from the description) has done nothing wrong here, can dismiss the employee immediately (as long as they pay required notice) and has no case to answer.
Whether they have a more formal disciplinary procedure or not makes no difference to the strength of any baseless claim.
And "bullying and harassment" would require some form of corroborated evidence. Again, without this no lawyer will proceed with this.

No-win no-fee lawyers don't have superpowers to win a hopeless case. Without a valid claim they will be unlikely to proceed as they know they will likely waste their time and not get paid. Especially bearing in mind the relatively small payments even in succesful tribunal cases.

Companies do not (and should not) worry about proceedings being started for any random baseless claim otherwise they would never make any changes to anything or ever get rid of anyone.
If course every company should have a robust disciplinary process in place for all sorts of reasons, but it wouldn't make any real difference to dismissing this employee in this instance.

Anyone can of course choose to start a tribunal case with any random claim without basis, but no lawyer (of any type) will normally recommend you proceed with it without some sort of vague chance of winning. Some unscrupulous ones might give you an unrealistic chance of winning, but I guarantee these would not be no-win no-fee lawyers - quite the opposite, they would be lawyers who would be sure you would pay either way.

Tribunals are NOT simple procedures to be invoked whenever an employee just doesn't like something.
Frivolous claims are likely to cost the employee significant time, stress, and/or money.

ILW - as detailed by other posters, your advice on tribunals and the risk of a succesful claim I'm afraid is incorrect.

ILW

Ashles wrote: »

Tribunals are NOT simple procedures to be invoked whenever an employee just doesn't like something.
Frivolous claims are likely to cost the employee significant time, stress, and/or money.

ILW - as detailed by other posters, your advice on tribunals and the risk of a succesful claim I'm afraid is incorrect.

My point was that even an unsuccessful claim can be very costly for a company, whilst a little bit of basic housekeeping can minimise any risk.

Notmyrealname

ILW wrote: »

The point is that if you have not dotted the Is and crossed the Ts a disgruntled employee can make a case which is very likely to fail but can cost the business thousands.

No they can't if they've been employed less than 12 months if they started prior to April 2012 or 24 months post April 2012. You can be dismissed without any reason whatsoever in that time frame with nothing more than "your services are no longer required". There is no requirement to go through any procedure. The only thing that needs to be adhered to is the notice period, either the statutory minimum or what is stated in the contract.

The only recourse you have is if you can prove the dismissal was on the grounds of your race, sex, religion, creed or disability.

My point was that even an unsuccessful claim can be very costly for a company, whilst a little bit of basic housekeeping can minimise any risk.

The tribunal would not even entertain hearing it unless on the aforementioned grounds. An employment tribunal doesn't just hear any case that someone wants heard - they're screened. Also if the claimant loses, they can end up paying all the costs of the defendant if the tribunal decides the claim was malicious.

Uncertain

ILW wrote: »

My point was that even an unsuccessful claim can be very costly for a company, whilst a little bit of basic housekeeping can minimise any risk.

Oh dear......

A few years ago when there was a hard and fast requirement to follow statutory procedures and fixed penalties for not doing so that was true (to some extent)!

Now however there is no such requirement and the kind of "basic housekeeping" you refer to can actually increase the risk if it is not done perfectly.

Nobody disputes that dealing with an unsuccessful claim is both time consuming and, if lawyers are used, expensive. This is the main reason why many firms settle claims they could probably have won.

However, I (along with most others on here) totally fail to see how IN THIS CASE your "basic housekeeping" is in ANY WAY reducing the risk of a spurious claim.

As others have said the OP simply needs to say that her services are no longer required and pay the proper notice and holiday. Unless there is some discrimination aspect we haven't been told about there is no valid claim. If there is discrimination your "housekeeping" won't help one little bit but may well provide the employee with evidence.

Ashles

ILW wrote: »

My point was that even an unsuccessful claim can be very costly for a company, whilst a little bit of basic housekeeping can minimise any risk.

I understand that, but what I am saying is this is not the case.
If it's a baseless claim then why would it make any difference whether you had great housekeeping or none? The tribunal does not judge a company on its housekeeping, only whether the wrongful dismissal case is valid.

gibson123

JoRoss wrote: »

No offence taken you're absolutely right! People don't see me as authority and I do struggle with that.

I have to man up!!

A bit of advice.. good discipline is not a bad thing and is necessary in every sphere of life, but especially in the workplace. Some people (especially young people) just like to test the boundaries and see how far they will go. If some of your staff are doing this and getting away with it, all sorts of issues arise, such as "she gets away with it, why don't I" or even worse some undesirable behaviours become part of the workplace culture. Spell out very clearly what you expect from people and apply the rules fairly. If you are strict about the things that matter, apply the policy fairly, and don't use it to bully, you are giving your staff very clear boundaries and making it a much better place for everyone to work. Sometimes an official warning early on in the employment prevents people bringing their bad habits into your workplace, but more importantly saves escalation to being sacked for more serious infringements and issues.

ILW

Ashles wrote: »

I understand that, but what I am saying is this is not the case.
If it's a baseless claim then why would it make any difference whether you had great housekeeping or none? The tribunal does not judge a company on its housekeeping, only whether the wrongful dismissal case is valid.

My opinions come from being a member of the local CoC and talking with other small business owners. A few have ended up in litigation despite letting people go within the first year. The issues ranged from undisclosed pregnancy and racism accusations on no more evidence than the person let go was the only minority representative in the company and the only person to be fired. (The latter did go to trubunal and was dismissed)