17 yr old dismissed despite not being at fault

Nicki

daska wrote: »

It a matter of FACT that without DSD and the other lad they will be unable to fulfil a legal contract until they can recruit and train more staff, which obviously isn't impossible but could take months and will be very expensive. It's concievable that the combination of legal costs and replacing staff may be more than they can afford.

....

In fact we're actually trying to get some of them to consider the consequences if the whole operation folds.

How on earth did this charity manage before your daughter joined them then? She's only been there since April I think (when she was doing her GCSEs)?

And what kind of charity would have to cease operations completely if a student who only works there for a few hours a week after school moves on? Students are notoriously unreliable, and also only available for limited periods of time, due to timing of lessons, exams and their need to move on to or from university within a short period of time. I don't mean what kind of work do they do, I mean what sort of fiscal management do they have, as in my experience (as the trustee of two charities), the Charity Commission does expect charities to be more sustainable, and the PQASSO standard which charities are all expected to aim for would not be fulfilled by the situation you describe.

Uncertain

daska wrote: »

We are in possession of the facts. It has emerged that other members of staff are embroiled in other aspects of this and at least one has been to the police about it and it seems likely that there will be legal action being taken.

It a matter of FACT that without DSD and the other lad they will be unable to fulfil a legal contract until they can recruit and train more staff, which obviously isn't impossible but could take months and will be very expensive. It's concievable that the combination of legal costs and replacing staff may be more than they can afford.

And no Duchy, we haven't done any more than write a polite letter to the man in charge saying that we were shocked that the decision to dismiss was made prior to any investigation, considering DSD was the victim of the prank and there were no prior incidents on her record, and please could the situation be investigated fully before a final decision is made. We haven't shouted, made threats, implied that we will take it any further.

In fact we're actually trying to get some of them to consider the consequences if the whole operation folds.

Unfortunately the one holding most cards is also a key member of the team, again not irreplaceable but who's absence, given that no-one else there is qualified in his specialism will prevent them from offering a key service that generates most of their income.a

I genuinely wish I could share all the details, I think there would be a lot more understanding from you all if I were able to. But given the way things are moving I think I better not.

Well IF that is the case then you may well be able to throw some mud around and cause the organisation some difficulties. None of that will get step daughter her job back but maybe it will make you feel better.

I am still struggling to understand what PROFESSIONAL qualification a 16 / 17 year old schoolgirl can hold that is a LEGAL requirement for the charity to fulfil one of its functions. If they have, for some deeply obscure reason, got themselves into this situation then it is quite disgraceful.

You say they had no cause to sack her. Fair enough. But what would have happened if they did have good cause? The effect on their function would have been the same.

Crazy!

maninthestreet

Like others I'm still finding it difficult to believe that the entire charitable trust will not be able to functon and will have to close down due to the departure of a part-time junior employee who has only worked there for a few months.

Hmm71

daska wrote: »

So did anyone here read what I wrote about it NOT being an electronic image?

Or the bit I wrote on here about her tantrumming ability? Does that really make it sound like I think she's perfect? Really?

Is she a prodigy? i wouldn't class her as one. I said Russell Group not Oxbridge. But, factually, she has a qualification that a lot of her colleagues don't which allows her more, better-paid work which they aren't legally permitted to do. Most of her colleagues weren't interested when they found out what the training and full job description entailed and of those who did try not many passed, not even her manager.

Can't you just say well done her for getting off her bum and doing things to better herself and others. I'm sure you'd be the first to criticise us if she couldn't be bothered and planned to spend the rest of her life on benefits and I was on here asking how she could avoid working.

Oxford and Cambridge are Russell Group unis.

ILW

maninthestreet wrote: »

Like others I'm still finding it difficult to believe that the entire charitable trust will not be able to functon and will have to close down due to the departure of a part-time junior employee who has only worked there for a few months.

She may be the only one who knows how the tea machine works, and they have lost the instructions.

Hmm71

I accept the OP isn't going to give us details but I'm intrigued as to what sort of professional qualification a 17 year old could have gained so quickly. My husband left school at 17, started work in an insurance company and went to night school for three years to gain his professional ACII qualification.
Again, his daughter, (my lovely, intelligent, talented step-daughter who did walk into a Russell Group university ), had to undertake a three year graduate training programme at PriceWaterhouseCoopers in order to become a chartered accountant.

daska

The easiest analogy, as I gave earlier, is a driving licence. Compare it to haulage. There's no need for the office staff or manager to have an HGV licence but they couldn't function if none of their employees had one. Decades of experience doesn't count for anything without that qualification and it would be illegal for them to provide the service using people without that qualification.

They have 3 strands of income. Losing DSD alone would not cause them to cease functioning, but losing 50% of people with her specific skill AND their most highly skilled employee in another main source of income AND now potentially having to fight a legal case as well, in one fell swoop, will be a serious problem.

Also, while the qualifications were gained relatively quickly this is something that she has been aiming for for a long time and was therefore very well prepared for. It was by no means done from a standing start.

daska

Hmm71 wrote: »

Oxford and Cambridge are Russell Group unis.

They are indeed, but I'm being objective here, Oxford and Cambridge are still generally regarded as being the most difficult to get in to. And, to be blunt, the field she wants to get into aren't best served by them

Nicki

daska wrote: »

The easiest analogy, as I gave earlier, is a driving licence. Compare it to haulage. There's no need for the office staff or manager to have an HGV licence but they couldn't function if none of their employees had one. Decades of experience doesn't count for anything without that qualification and it would be illegal for them to provide the service using people without that qualification.

But a haulage company would not employ just one person (a teenager on a zero hours contract doing shifts after school as and when it was convenient for her) with an HGV license along with a whole host of other employees who aren't able to drive HGVs and have no other role in the organisation Any business will employ sufficient people with the right essential skills to meet their core business needs, and ensure there were always people available to enable the business to carry on.

I suspect your knowledge of what this charity does and how important your step daughter is comes perhaps mainly from your step daughter herself, and that is what is causing you to lose your perspective a bit.

The FACTS as you like to put it are that this charity apparently employs a number of older members of staff on permanent contracts, who are not being letting go. Therefore the bulk of this charity's work must be capable of being done by these members of staff. I very much doubt that all the older members of staff are sitting round doing nothing because they are unqualified and all the work of the charity is being undertaken by your step daughter on the part time irregular hours she is offered. Another FACT is that your step daughter is on a zero hours contract, and even when she was being offered shifts was only working a few hours a week around her school day. Therefore whatever her skill is, the charity does not need this for its full time operation, because it is perfectly capable of offering its services when your step daughter is at school or doing her homework or just not available. The final FACT is that your step daughter is 17 years old and apparently acquired this qualification while also doing her GCSEs (so the time needed to acquire this qualification is not very long, and it does not need full time study) and the qualification according to another thread you started a while back cost £200 (which is not a huge business expense, especially when tax deductible). Therefore it is quite likely that there will be many people who can be recruited who also have this qualification, or that an existing member of staff can be put through the training at minimum cost and inconvenience to the charity quite quickly.

If the charity relies heavily on public sector funding, as many do, it may be the case that their funding for the service which your step daughter is working on is either at risk or has been cut in its entirety and they are looking at winding that service down anyway, hence why they don't care much whether your step daughter stays or goes. Or there is some other reason, which your step daughter is unaware of as she is not in management, why she is not the indispensable member of staff she believed she was.

It seems to me that you and your step daughter have both got your knickers in a tremendous twist about what is when all is said and done some after school work for a teenager in her first year of an A level course. You said yourself in another thread that this wasn't a post with permanent prospects for your step daughter, just something which would look good on her CV for a while. It isn't as if this is a sole wage earner for a family who has lost his full time job. Your step daughter has had the experience for 7 months, she can put it on her CV with a clear conscience, and if she wants to earn some money on the side, can perhaps apply for a retail or service job (or any other job often open to students) until she goes off to university. I accept it is unpleasant and unfair to be let go when it was someone else's fault but without employment protection rights, that is unfortunately life, and she could have been dismissed with minimal notice for no reason at all at any point in the first two years (provided no illegal discrimination was at play).

j.e.j.

I just got curious and googled Russell Group University. Seems the uni I went to (years ago) is on the list. Whether or not you 'walked into' a course there depended on how many applicants there were for that particular course. They are ok, fairly good universities, but I am surprised they're considered to be 'elite'.

Interesting, too, that Oxford and Cambridge are not really good enough for OP's step-daughter (not the other way round!) :undecided

This thread is starting to remind me of my cousin, whose mother was always talking him up. For instance he was so good at his computer studies at school he was 'teaching the teachers, you know' :rotfl: