probation termination advice

Slinky

It's sooooo hard to see why the employer would want to get rid of the OP isn't it.

pelirocco

The following characteristics are protected characteristics—

• age;
• disability;
• gender reassignment;
• marriage and civil partnership;
• pregnancy and maternity;
• race;
• religion or belief;
• sex;
• sexual orientation

As this covers almost all the population , it would be niave to think you cannot be dismissed from a job , you are only protected if you are dismissed using one of the above as an excuse ...

The OP clearly said he was dismissed because of preformance .


But no doubt he will be back shortly saying hes won his case and has been awarded millions in compensation

Tiddlywinks

johnnymac93 wrote: »

Thanks dacouch. Might well do.
I'm in good company at the mo with 2 lawyers and 2 trainee lawyers advising as well on how to approach this.

You posted your question yesterday in the afternoon and in the short time between then and now you have managed to gather a posse of legal professionals together to work on your case?

:rotfl:

Come on, IF you've manage to engage them.... IF..... then I would question how they are able to drop everything and give this case their attention.... that's probably an indicator of how much of a demand there is for their services.

Incidentally, just because you have one of the protected characteristics it does not necessarily mean that you were dismissed because of that characteristic.

I think (particular from the indicators on this thread) it is fair to say that someone can possess a protected characteristic and still be dismissed for an entirely different and unrelated reason... say, for being rude or obnoxious, not being a team player, or not being able to write in a way that meets the needs of the audience...?

johnnymac93

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

You posted your question yesterday in the afternoon and in the short time between then and now you have managed to gather a posse of legal professionals together to work on your case?

:rotfl:
Friends who have put me in touch with soliciters/barristers who are knowledgable in employment law. I didn't say they were working for me dummy. But they've been able to give me professional advice for free and think I do have a case based on the entire facts regardless of the reasons given by employer.

Incidentally, just because you have one of the protected characteristics it does not necessarily mean that you were dismissed because of that characteristic.

I think (particular from the indicators on this thread) it is fair to say that someone can possess a protected characteristic and still be dismissed for an entirely different and unrelated reason... say, for being rude or obnoxious, not being a team player, or not being able to write in a way that meets the needs of the audience...?

I've said it many times already that I wouldn't go into the details yet people will insist on knowing the outcome of the case without them based solely on what i have written.
The "indicators on this thread" comment says it all really. 'Indicators'. Nobody on he forum knows the full facts. and as stated previously they were not needed to answer the questions which were asked. Read more carefully.
Appreciate people can have their own opinions and are welcomed to add them in but are wasting their own time telling me that they know the outcome already based only on what's here, not mine.
I've not been secretive about anything. I wanted to keep some stuff private and said so from the start. If that doesn't "please the needs" of this audience, tough. I've thanked those who've contributed sensibly and will update this thread regardless of the outcome.

Reggie_Rebel

As you won't give the full facts then you can't expect to get full answers, or one that fall in with the opinion you have already formed.

From what you have posted I think that you are probably in the employment of a secret organisation and failed in your task to knock off David Cameron, and I claim my five pounds

Tiddlywinks

If your entire case is based solely on possession of a protected characteristic then you are on a hiding to nothing.

If you insist there is more to this case than you have shared then you will not get an accurate response without relevant detail - so what was the point of asking in the first place?

Either way... I'm sure your 'friends' all know the facts... you know, the facts from your perspective but, remember, there is always more than one version of events.

pelirocco

johnnymac93 wrote: »

I've said it many times already that I wouldn't go into the details yet people will insist on knowing the outcome of the case without them based solely on what i have written.
The "indicators on this thread" comment says it all really. 'Indicators'. Nobody on he forum knows the full facts. and as stated previously they were not needed to answer the questions which were asked. Read more carefully.
Appreciate people can have their own opinions and are welcomed to add them in but are wasting their own time telling me that they know the outcome already based only on what's here, not mine.
I've not been secretive about anything. I wanted to keep some stuff private and said so from the start. If that doesn't "please the needs" of this audience, tough. I've thanked those who've contributed sensibly and will update this thread regardless of the outcome.

The points you did raise were answered , only you didnt like them

johnnymac93

pelirocco wrote: »

The points you did raise were answered , only you didnt like them

Wrong. zzzLazyDaisy answered and supplied an explanation and I said thanks. You're yet another know it all who falls into the 'read more carefully' before you run your gums category.

Update: Submitted appeal leter yesterday afternoon and will hear back by cob today. More to come.

coinxoperated

Keep it to yourself Johnnymac. With your attitude and obnoxious replies I certainly won't be reading your BS again.

pelirocco

johnnymac93 wrote: »

Wrong. zzzLazyDaisy answered and supplied an explanation and I said thanks. You're yet another know it all who falls into the 'read more carefully' before you run your gums category.

Update: Submitted appeal leter yesterday afternoon and will hear back by cob today. More to come.

LD's reply was the same as the replies from everyone else , basically telling you your employers had done nothing wrong


( As an employer I am pretty well versed in employment law )