Sacked due to an unstubstantiated allegation

Andrew1975

Posting here on behalf of a friend of mine who has a problem.

They started a job on a permanent full time basis, within 2 months of starting they were told that they should not return to work the following week as they had been seen committing an act of gross misconduct. My friend is adamant that this misconduct did not occur. The employer is adamant that he has limited rights as he had only been there 2 months, and have not given him a hearing.

The question is, is he by law entitled to an investigation and hearing and appeal given that he has only been employed for 2 months, and what is his recourse given that a) he believes the reasons for dismissal are false and invented and b) he has not worked there long enough to qualify for an application to the Tribunal.

Basically he wants to know if the fact he hasnt worked there for very long entitle the employer to defame him and sack him.

jobbingmusician

This sounds as if it might be wrongful dismissal. (It also sounds to my un-legally trained mind as if it might be slander and potential libel).

1. Does your friend have a copy of the company's disciplinary policy? (If he doesn't, he should request one)
2. Does this, or his contract, specifically exempt people on their probation for being covered by the disc policy?
3. Does anyone know, if 2 is true, is it legal?

InsideInsurance

Given the length of employment then the employer could terminate the employment, with notice, without any need to give a reason for doing so.

I dont know because they've actually given a reason if that changes anything or not - I'd suspect not

Andrew1975

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Given the length of employment then the employer could terminate the employment, with notice, without any need to give a reason for doing so.

I dont know because they've actually given a reason if that changes anything or not - I'd suspect not

Potential defamation of character? - with the damages that this has caused.

jobbingmusician

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Given the length of employment then the employer could terminate the employment, with notice, without any need to give a reason for doing so.

This is true. But it is not the same as saying that you can sack someone for GM without conducting a proper enquiry.

OP - has the employer given reasons for dismissal in writing?

DVardysShadow

My feeling for this is that they can dismiss on the basis of an act which might be Gross Misconduct without any need for due process before a year or 2 years are up depending on start date.

But if they do it without hearings then in actual fact they are dismissing on the basis of no fault provisions in law and have no justification to describe it as Gross misconduct.

Andrew1975

DVardysShadow wrote: »

My feeling for this is that they can dismiss on the basis of an act which might be Gross Misconduct without any need for due process before a year or 2 years are up depending on start date.

But if they do it without hearings then in actual fact they are dismissing on the basis of no fault provisions in law and have no justification to describe it as Gross misconduct.

and is therefore actionable? where?

jobbingmusician

Employment Tribunal. Start by ringing ACAS, and come back here to let us know what they say. Not all their advice is 100%........

Acc72

Andrew1975 wrote: »

Potential defamation of character? - with the damages that this has caused.

What damages are you referring to ?

Your friend has 2 options, either move on in life or continue to look at this negative experience and let it affect their life moving forward (both emotionally and also financially if they are looking at taking some form of legal action).

Andrew1975

Acc72 wrote: »

What damages are you referring to ?

Your friend has 2 options, either move on in life or continue to look at this negative experience and let it affect their life moving forward (both emotionally and also financially if they are looking at taking some form of legal action).

the damages being his loss of job due to a defamatory statement being made against him.

he is quite a stable guy, i think he would be able to to action this without it affecting his 'mental state'.

It's true to say he has been out of work for 6 months or so since being made redundant from his last job, so this was a good opportunity for him - the alternative is to go back to job seeking in a difficult environment. If he's actually done what was claimed I'd agree with your assertion to move on - but he says he hasnt.

Acc72

Andrew1975 wrote: »

If he's actually done what was claimed I'd agree with your assertion to move on - but he says he hasnt.

Can he prove it ? - and also does he have the time, money and energy to go through a legal process that ultimately may be unsuccessful ?

I am not saying that my advice is "right", just that sometimes in the great scheme of things he would IMHO be better off spending his time and energy in finding another job rather than focussing on this.