Strange situation

getmore4less

badaz52 wrote: »

What is the significance of the 5th April 2012? Was there a change in employment law or is to do with 12 months in a job and whether you can be let go etc?

it changed to 2 years.

zzzLazyDaisy

badaz52 wrote: »

What is the significance of the 5th April 2012? Was there a change in employment law or is to do with 12 months in a job and whether you can be let go etc?

If you started before 5th April 2012 you need 12 mths service for protection from unfair dismissal.

If you started on or after 5th April 2012, the employer can dismiss you for any reason or no reason at all within the first TWO years (provided the reason does not breach anti-discrimination laws). In which case, they may just decide to replace you with someone who will do the job to their requirements.

Takeaway_Addict

badaz52 wrote: »

What is the significance of the 5th April 2012? Was there a change in employment law or is to do with 12 months in a job and whether you can be let go etc?

Yes in that its now 2 years instead of 1 year before u can claim unfair dismissal/constructive dismissal

badaz52

I think I should be OK I was given continuous service protection from a previous employment so that would make it 7 years+

anamenottaken

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

If you started before 5th April 2012 you need 12 mths service for protection from unfair dismissal.

If you started on or after 5th April 2012, the employer can dismiss you for any reason or no reason at all within the first TWO years (provided the reason does not breach anti-discrimination laws). In which case, they may just decide to replace you with someone who will do the job to their requirements.

Hate to be really picky but the effective date the qualification period increased to two years was 6th April 2012 - so for those whose employment began on or after 6th April, not 5th.

CFC

badaz52 wrote: »

I think I should be OK I was given continuous service protection from a previous employment so that would make it 7 years+

You've obviously not heard either of performance management or redundancy then to think you're bullet proof?

Rottensocks

Badaz, you don't say whether you are being asked to do this as part of your formal performance objectives for the coming year, or whether it is just an ad hoc request from your boss?

Evilm

Everywhere I've worked - big or small - I've seen or heard the IT Managers jumping in and doing the cabling etc on occasion. IT seems to be one of those jobs where it does occasionally all happen at once and a job needs to be done double quick so they do cross train everyone on as much as possible - even the lower end taks.

Reggie_Rebel

I'm a little bit surprised that you have risen to that role without having to be able to build a network infrastructure.

It was one of the first things I learned to do when I moved into IT a dozen years ago. Like the OP I worked as part of a small team and the IT Manager was always involved in building the infrastructure.

badaz52

I never said I could not do it because I can, I'm not very good working at heights so don't like to do too much at high level. This was an ad hoc request from my manager and my issue was that as a manager I should be entitled to delegate the task to my team of technicians as it is their job to do and my job to manage otherwise we would have businesses run by one person if everyone could do everything!

Also I don't think that I am bullet proof but as I have pointed out I am doing exactly what I have been employed to do and that is manage the network support team, sure I can be asked to do anything below management level up to a level consistent with the main responsibilities but in my opinion this should only be when there is no other option, if I have the staff and then need jobs to be getting on with then I would delegate this particular task. Obviously jobs that have been assigned to m that are on a management level cannot be delegated because I would then not be doing my job.