17 yr old dismissed despite not being at fault

Caroline_a

First Aid certificate?

j.e.j.

Caroline_a wrote: »

First Aid certificate?

..could even be something like makaton (?), but whatever it is, I think the points Nicki raised in her post are very relevant. We are talking about a 17-year-old part time employee and however 'highly qualified' she is, very few people are indispensible, especially when it comes to working for large organisations.

Hmm71

j.e.j. wrote: »

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:

:rotfl::rotfl: That sounds exactly like my late ma-in-law!

daska

Thank you Nicki for taking so much time to analyse it all. Unfortunately you started from a false premise.

You are correct that there are many more people with the qualification you are referring to, there is no problem filling that role at all, which is why they have so many staff on zero hour contracts and why some have lost out due to the shifts being given to the higher qualified staff until they are needed for the role they specialise in, it's cyclical.

But, here's the rub, DSD has a higher qualification than the one referred to in that thread, one that costs many times more. DSD was one of only a handful who passed the entrance qualifications to take the course. Most of those who tried failed to get on the course and not all of those who took it passed- including the manager, which is why he is not legally permitted to fill the role even though he, in theory, is more than capable and has years more experience. This is what lead to them being understaffed as I referred to previously. Of course the older members of staff don't sit around doing nothing, they do the jobs they are employed and qualified to do, but there were only 4, now 2, who are legally permitted to do the the job. They didn't amend DSD's contract, or the others, as there appeared no need to, as they are all very committed to the role, hardly surprising considering that it pays very well and we live in one of the worst areas for unemployment. The person who sacked them is not involved on that side and we know for a fact that they did it without consulting anyone more senior.

And as to our understanding of the organisation, well, a close friend was very active in setting it up, though declined to take an active role in running it, so we have been able to check that we understand and aren't jumping to false conclusions.

Nicki

Your post is very confusing Daska because you are still being coy about what this qualification is and the roles in question.

However what I think you are saying is this:

The vast majority of the work can be carried out by any employee of the charity, but there is one element which can only be carried out by employees with the mystery qualification.

Those who had this qualification tended to be offered more of the shifts which anyone could do. But anyone could do those shifts (ie was qualified to do them), it was simply that those with mystery qualification were "rewarded" by having first refusal.

There was a small element of the work which could only be done by people with the mystery qualification. Your step daughter and her friend were two of those who did have that qualification. But there are two employees remaining with the charity who also have it.

If this understanding is correct, then I don't see why you think the charity will in any way suffer by letting your step daughter and her friend go. They still have people on the books who can do this special element when this is needed, and plenty of staff who can do the main business of the charity.

I'm sorry I think you are flogging a dead horse with this one, and that your step daughter has little chance of reinstatement. It is though very hard for anyone on the thread to give you any kind of sensible advice based on what you have posted. Whilst the situation obviously makes sense to you, to the rest of us without any of the detail, it just sounds far fetched and a one sided version of events, and based on the very limited information you are giving all anyone can realistically say to you is that whilst they sympathise with her, the situation is hopeless. If you genuinely feel that the detail of what she does and her qualification makes a difference, then you need to find someone you trust in real life with the appropriate expertise who will listen to the full story and give you unbiased advice.

Catherine_Johnson_2

For goodness sake, why all the subterfuge and making it highly secretive as to what this qualification is? Please remember, it was you who actually brought it up and told everyone how amazing your step daughter was to have gained this secret qualification and how the business relied upon her. It's no wonder people are asking what it is and, I have to say, it makes you sound somewhat silly now not to be saying what it is.

Your step daughter no longer works for this organisation (if I understand correctly from this now over long thread), so what does it matter if someone recognises her or the organisation?

The only conclusion from not being open about this (after you brought it up) is that we might realise that you've somewhat overstated the importance your step daughter had in the organisation. I don't blame that on you, we all tend to believe our own kids and think them wonderful but I think you may have swallowed a bit of a whopper here!! Come on, do you honestly expect people to believe that any organisation would rely so heavily on a part time 16/17 year old that it would bring them to their knees if she left? I hardly think so! Take another scenario - what would they have done if she had simply decided to leave one day? Do you really think there was no contingency plan? Or, maybe they didn't need one because, perhaps, just perhaps, she isn't quite the lynchpin of the organisation that she's told you she is?

daska

We're not flogging anything LOL. As I said a couple of pages back we're considering it a very useful lesson for her to learn at a tender age while she's still in a supportive environment.

And again as I said earlier, this is not just about DSD, it's the combination losing 50% of the staff with that qualification AND the key member of staff with another qualification AND fighting a legal battle which combined could cause them considerable problems. Of course employees can be replaced, and conversely so can employers!

We've sent one, very polite, letter to the "man at the top", who we now know was unaware of the events until we alerted him. He was, apparently, rather unhappy when he found out about it. It may or may not make a difference to the outcome, we're encouraging her to look at all the other options open to her.

(We don't know how he feels now that another employee with substantially more rights has announced that he will be taking legal action over unfair dismissal and discrimination - his case is very much intertwined with that of DSD and the lad responsible for the prank so it could influence the outcome as well. No doubt we will find out next week.)

j.e.j.

Nicki wrote: »

It is though very hard for anyone on the thread to give you any kind of sensible advice based on what you have posted. Whilst the situation obviously makes sense to you, to the rest of us without any of the detail, it just sounds far fetched and a one sided version of events

I think this very neatly sums it up ^^^

The more people post responses, the more convoluted the OP's story seems to be getting.

All I have been able to glean is that the 17-year-old step daughter has managed to get this expensive mystery 'qualification', whatever that might be, when hardly anyone else she worked with has it or seems capable of getting it.

I suppose my advice would still be, as before, to try and persuade the ex-employer that it might be in their interest to keep the girl (and her friend?) on. If not, perhaps she can use this highly sought-after, expensive qualification to find herself a similar position somewhere else?

Uncertain

j.e.j. wrote: »

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

Without a doubt the best comment in the whole thread!

ohreally

Catherine_Johnson wrote: »

For goodness sake, why all the subterfuge and making it highly secretive as to what this qualification is?

Perhaps it's masonic in nature given the secrecy.