Sackable offence??

Uncertain

ILW wrote: »

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)

Exactly - both discrimination claims (whether valid or not).

The point we are making here is that any amount of "housekeeping" will not prevent this type of claim and may possibly provide a switched on (devious) claimant with additional ammunition.

ILW

Uncertain wrote: »

Exactly - both discrimination claims (whether valid or not).

The point we are making here is that any amount of "housekeeping" will not prevent this type of claim and may possibly provide a switched on (devious) claimant with additional ammunition.

Based on the OPs case (with the limited info available)

OP just fires the employee giving no reason. (Less than 1 years employment)

Months later a lawyers letter arrives claiming unfair dismissal on the grounds of the employee was hot and smelly due to inadequate washing facilities for female staff.
With no record of a discussion as to why the staff member compained and left early it could turn into an expensive case to defend.

Pricivius

No it wouldn't - she can't bring unfair dismissal with less than a year's service. The Tribunal would throw it out.

But I can see your point - employers need to be aware that spurious claims are out there and are happening more and more now that people need 2 years' employment to plead unfair dismissal. But you can't run a business with one eye on the potential vexatious litigants.

Getting back to the OP, is it gross misconduct? Possibly, but this would depend on your policies and any precedent. One point to consider though is that personal hygiene is no doubt crucial in your field so the employee has clearly let this area slide and turned up for work not in a position to physically cope with a hot day "in the office". This is the approach I would take, either with her individually or with all the staff as a group.

I agree with those who have suggested you need to put down a marker in this instance - she has demonstrated insubordination and a lack of respect to you as her manager by walking out and has arrived for work unable to complete her shift due to a personal hygiene failure.

Catherine_Johnson_2

ILW wrote: »

Based on the OPs case (with the limited info available)

OP just fires the employee giving no reason. (Less than 1 years employment)

Months later a lawyers letter arrives claiming unfair dismissal on the grounds of the employee was hot and smelly due to inadequate washing facilities for female staff.
With no record of a discussion as to why the staff member compained and left early it could turn into an expensive case to defend.

Personally, no offence meant, but I would have quit a few posts back. You're going to struggle to dig yourself out of this one

Ashles

ILW wrote: »

Based on the OPs case (with the limited info available)

OP just fires the employee giving no reason. (Less than 1 years employment)

Months later a lawyers letter arrives claiming unfair dismissal on the grounds of the employee was hot and smelly due to inadequate washing facilities for female staff.
With no record of a discussion as to why the staff member compained and left early it could turn into an expensive case to defend.

So you are inventing a lawyer who will take this case? And inventing a reason too?

The employee can say whatever they like - she can claim the employer punched her in the face and threatened to burn down her house - but in the absence of evidence she has no case.
Having stricter disciplinary processes does not in any way stop claimants making stuff up.

In your scenario above the claimant is making things up for which there is no evidence (the imaginary inadequate washing facilities). If they are intending to do so how does having stricter disciplinary processes help?
Assuming the washing facilities are actually adequate (or equal) then it is not a claim they are going to win. The lawyers would ask what evidence she had about the washing facilities, she would say none and the lawyers would say she had no case.

If she can find a lawyer willing to proceed with a case despite having no evidence for the claim, again, how would having strict disciplinary processes have helped?

I'm sorry but you are not understanding what everyone is telling you here. In this instance, in the absence of any ACTUAL discriminatory activities, having different disciplinary processes is utterly irrelevant to whether the employer can legitimately let this person go or not. They can. There is no genuine reason for an employee to have a case as a result.

If the employee chooses to INVENT discriminatory claims then they can say what they like. The company could have extensive and detailed processes, but the false claimant would simply choose claims which were not addressed in the processes (or, since they are making it up, events which were completely ignored by the processes).

Uncertain

Catherine_Johnson wrote: »

Personally, no offence meant, but I would have quit a few posts back. You're going to struggle to dig yourself out of this one

Absolutely!

Is there a "flogging a dead horse" smiley available?

Ashles

ILW wrote: »

Based on the OPs case (with the limited info available)

OP just fires the employee giving no reason. (Less than 1 years employment)

Months later a lawyers letter arrives claiming unfair dismissal on the grounds of the employee was hot and smelly due to inadequate washing facilities for female staff.
With no record of a discussion as to why the staff member compained and left early it could turn into an expensive case to defend.

Or to put it another way:

No matter how generous and scrupulous an employer you are and however much you follow employee law and your own internal policies (whether detailed or not), if you ever let an employee go under any circumstances whatsoever they can choose to invent a completely fake discriminatry claim against you.

If this employee finds an unscruplulous lawyer who they are prepared to pay for even if they lose (and the lawyer will know they are likely to lose), and they find a tribunal board happy to allow the case to be heard without any evidence, then you as an employer may have to pay to defend youself in a tribunal, which you will almost certainly win and will have a decent chance of reclaiming costs.



The above advice, while true, doesn't exactly help an employer does it? As there is literally nothing they can do to avoid such instances.
Having strict and detailed processes, or practically none would make absolutely no difference to the above.

ILW

I think the difference in opinion here is the theory against what actually happens to small businesses in the real world. It should not be the case that a vexatious litigant can cripple a small firm - but it does happen.

In the above example, what if the female washing facilities were in fact inadequate?

Uncertain

ILW wrote: »

It should not be the case that a vexatious litigant can cripple a small firm - but it does happen.

I totally agree, but what you are advocating here does not help to prevent that in the slightest.

Maybe it should but it doesn't.

ILW wrote: »

In the above example, what if the female washing facilities were in fact inadequate?

In that case she may possibly have a valid discrimination claim.

ILW

Uncertain wrote: »

I totally agree, but what you are advocating here does not help to prevent that in the slightest.

Maybe it should but it doesn't.




In that case she may possibly have a valid discrimination claim.

And if the housekeeping/documentation had been properly kept and up to date the situation would not have arisen, or could have been proven false.

I juts believe that by sticking to the letter of all the regulations, you are much less likely to get shafted.

I also believe that once all the mis selling and motor insurance rubbish is tightened up on, there are going to be a lot of relatively low grade lawyers looking for work, and will be looking at sloppy small employers as a source of revenue.