can my employer sack me for what they say high level of absent

tylerbob

Please could anybody help me with any advise or legal advise. I was employeed for just under 10 months and had a total of 12 days off. 6 of these days were due to a unforseen emergancy and down to caring for a depemdant. 1 day was taken as a holiday to cover caring for my diabled wife. another day i was in work for 7 and a half hours as I worked nights for a few weeks to help the company.
I appealed there decision and they said they dont care what the reasons were it was purely the fact that I was off. I had no warning, no written warning and advised in my return to work that there was ever an issue. also other employees had higher levels of sickness and they have not been dismissed or warned. the company never gave me a contract or stated what there policy was regarding sickness. I ve never been given the company policys. Please could anyboby advise me on the best way forward.

many thanks

elsien

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but I think that as you were only there for 10 months, they can get rid of you anytime for any reason as your employment rights don't kick in till you've been employed for longer.
They don't have to give a reason or follow procedures, however unfair that feels.

notanewuser

elsien wrote: »

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but I think that as you were only there for 10 months, they can get rid of you anytime for any reason as your employment rights don't kick in till you've been employed for longer.
They don't have to give a reason or follow procedures, however unfair that feels.

^^^^^this.

jobbingmusician

Yes, I have to agree with the other posters.

Yes, it is unfair. And our appalling government has just increased the time you have to be at a job until you get full employment rights - if you started a job from April 2012 onwards, you have to be there for two whole years before your employer has to follow proper procedures to sack you fairly. Before that time, they can sack you on a whim............

Takeaway_Addict

jobbingmusician wrote: »

Yes, I have to agree with the other posters.

Yes, it is unfair. And our appalling government has just increased the time you have to be at a job until you get full employment rights - if you started a job from April 2012 onwards, you have to be there for two whole years before your employer has to follow proper procedures to sack you fairly. Before that time, they can sack you on a whim............

Its weird how its deemed unfair if an employer decides they no longer require your services and gives notice yet an employee can simply decide they no longer require their employers service at any time they decide.

Double standards really.

Person_one

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

Its weird how its deemed unfair if an employer decides they no longer require your services and gives notice yet an employee can simply decide they no longer require their employers service at any time they decide.

Double standards really.

Its not an equal balance of power though, is it?

Takeaway_Addict

Person_one wrote: »

Its not an equal balance of power though, is it?

Alas its not. Before the time is reached for protection the power is with the employer. After that its with the employee.

I guess its unfair on employees before and then employers after and theres not alot that can be done.

Person_one

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

Alas its not. Before the time is reached for protection the power is with the employer. After that its with the employee.

I guess its unfair on employees before and then employers after and theres not alot that can be done.

I think the employer is still in a far more powerful position than the employee even after two years. After two years the employee gains protection so that they can't be treated unfairly, that's all. The employee is still dependent on the employer for their livelihood, and its much easier to hire a new staff member than it is to find a new job!

Takeaway_Addict

Person_one wrote: »

I think the employer is still in a far more powerful position than the employee even after two years. After two years the employee gains protection so that they can't be treated unfairly, that's all. The employee is still dependent on the employer for their livelihood, and its much easier to hire a new staff member than it is to find a new job!

I disagree but I don't wish to further derail this thread and ultimately our views won't change will they

somethingcorporate

Person_one wrote: »

I think the employer is still in a far more powerful position than the employee even after two years. After two years the employee gains protection so that they can't be treated unfairly, that's all. The employee is still dependent on the employer for their livelihood, and its much easier to hire a new staff member than it is to find a new job!

I don't agree either. Hiring new employees is a time intensive and expensive process.

Finding a new job costs an employee nothing aside from writing an application/attending interviews.

I've seen recruitment bills in the hundreds of thousands and that does not take account of any of the management time invested.

Employees can still leave on a very short period of time compared to how long it can take to find and train up a replacement.

tylerbob

Thanks for your advise.

I was made aware that you can bring an unfair dismissal claim even if you have not been employeed for 12 months under certain circumstances. Acas advise emergancy circumstances can not be used against an employee.