Unfairly dismissed - advice needed

riggers1982

Thank you Lazydazy

He has got a representative from a union and people from work have all provided him with statements and will act as witnesses at the tribunal if need be. My husband was the number two in the company and was fired by the CEO who has been off sick for six months and just came back a couple of months ago and was threatened that my husband could basically do her job and the staff all look up to him. The company is ran by board members but she went behind their backs and sacked him before even telling them. We have it on good authority from other staff members that she is running the company into the ground and everybody is too scared to say anything, even worried about going to the board as the CEO has a "relationship" with the chair of the board and he will not stand up to her. My husband is scared that when he wins the tribunal the company will not have enough money to pay him. The board are running his appeal but adjourned the appeal meeting as his rep said they could only discuss what he was sacked for and not the fresh allegations, they said they needed to consult peninsula (companys employment lawyers) but we know that they went straight to the CEO and showed her the evidence that my husband had provided. He only wants his job back and the rest of the staff want him to come back to but whilst she is there, its not going to happen. He has even put a grievance in against the CEO but they see to be ignoring that too!

zzzLazyDaisy

silkyuk9 wrote: »

LazyDaisy

I agree with your comments, what I do not agree with is others saying a boss can sack you for absolutely anything within the first 2 years.

I have given 2 clear personal examples of this, ive also given clear examples of how difficult it is in the health service. Again I have known people who have worked for a few months and gone on long term sick, come back and do it again after a few months, and they still cant get rid of them.

While I agree with your comments, which are clear, unlike some other repliers a boss could not fire a person if they insisted that they do something unreasonable or bizarre because of this '2 year rule'

The thing is, during the first two years, the employer does not have to give any reason at all for terminating the employment. So they don't have to make unreasonable or bizarre requests in order to find a reason to dismiss. They can just do it. No reason needed.

While I accept that NHS and some other employers have a clear policy of following specified procedures even within the first two years, this is not a legal obligation under general law - though it is probably part of a collective agreement with a union, which does make it legally binding on that specific employer.

However, the reason that posters use the short form 'the employer can dismiss for any reason within the first two years, apart from a discriminatory reason' (and I do this myself) is because explaining the exceptions for the NHS and/or other unusual situations doesn't help the OP who is seeking advice on a specific situation which is fairly run of the mill, in employment law terms. They just want to know how about their own rights under the law.

Hope that clarifies things.

D

zzzLazyDaisy

riggers1982 wrote: »

Thank you Lazydazy

He has got a representative from a union and people from work have all provided him with statements and will act as witnesses at the tribunal if need be. My husband was the number two in the company and was fired by the CEO who has been off sick for six months and just came back a couple of months ago and was threatened that my husband could basically do her job and the staff all look up to him. The company is ran by board members but she went behind their backs and sacked him before even telling them. We have it on good authority from other staff members that she is running the company into the ground and everybody is too scared to say anything, even worried about going to the board as the CEO has a "relationship" with the chair of the board and he will not stand up to her. My husband is scared that when he wins the tribunal the company will not have enough money to pay him. The board are running his appeal but adjourned the appeal meeting as his rep said they could only discuss what he was sacked for and not the fresh allegations, they said they needed to consult peninsula (companys employment lawyers) but we know that they went straight to the CEO and showed her the evidence that my husband had provided. He only wants his job back and the rest of the staff want him to come back to but whilst she is there, its not going to happen. He has even put a grievance in against the CEO but they see to be ignoring that too!

Okay, in that case, in my professional opinion, he's stuffed, as far as getting his job back is concerned - and to be honest even if he does go back, she will make his life a misery. I have come across employers where the organisation is run by committee with a strong willed Chairperson/CEO and there is a high likelihood that she will run her little domain her way with no regard for the law. There is also an evens chance that she will refuse to come to tribunal and give evidence (this is also my experience) which means your OH's prospects of winning are increased significantly.

It's great that he has TU representation and hopefully they will also represent him in tribunal. But be aware that fees come in on 29th July, and unless the Union are paying the fees, it is better to get the claim in smartish.

Dx

EDIT - if the company goes into liquidation/administration at least part of the award will be paid out by the government insolvency service.

riggers1982

Thank you again for all your advice.
His rep will not unfortunately represent him at the tribunal so we will have to go elsewhere which will probably incur representation costs. Do you know whether the company will have to pick up all the legal costs when he wins the case?

gibson123

riggers have you checked your house insurance? You may very well be paying for legal cover that also covers employment matters.

zzzLazyDaisy

The normal rule in tribunals is that each party pays their own costs.

With the introduction of fees, it remains to be seen whether the tribunals order a losing respondent to pay costs, but there is no specific provision for this.

It is good advice to check your house insurance as if it includes legal cover, this often includes tribunal representation.

There are organisations that offer representation on a 'no win no fee' basis but they are often not solicitors and the quality of representation is very variable.

To be honest I am very surprised that the union won't represent, but at the very least I presume that the rep who accompanied him to the appeal will also be willing to attend and give evidence?

Do also be aware that tribunal judges are used to people representing themselves, and will make allowances for the fact that you are not legally qualified. You can get a lot of advice on here and there are some good books on procedure etc, so I would suggest that you think carefully before paying out for a solicitor, especially as you have expressed doubts about whether the company will have the funds to pay even if you win.

riggers1982

Just an update as to what is happening with this case regarding my husband. He had his appeal hearing, which was postponed half way by the hearing panel as they wanted to bring in other things not related to the case which his rep said they couldn't and so they wanted to consult their employment lawyers peninsula to see what to do. Anyway he received a letter almost two weeks later saying that the appeal hearing is being reconvened tomorrow and will only take into account the initial dismissal letter and our appeal points. This morning (sunday morning at 6.30am) we received a hand delivered letter with more statements that are based on lies. Can these statements be used against my husband tomorrow? as he hasn't had time to get evidence to back him up and its clearly not been investigated properly. Also if the appeal hearing went ahead as normal two weeks ago then these statements would not have come to light or have been used. It all seems that the CEO is trying anything not to give my husband his job back and concocting lies upon lies. any advice would be appreciated. thanks

zzzLazyDaisy

Your OH needs to make sure his union rep sees these statements.

Hopefully the union rep can get them to withdraw the statements, but to be honest nothing he says or does is going to get his job back. The CEO will make sure of that.

What he needs to do is to get it on record that these were hand delivered at 6.30 am on Sunday morning, the day before the reconvened hearing and it is very unfair to suddenly produce additional evidence without him being given any opportunity to consider it or take advice.

riggers1982

The rep got a copy delivered to him this morning and my husband is currently in a meeting with him now to discuss. My husband doesn't really want to go back but feels he has to, to prove the point that he hasn't done anything wrong. I just wish the board would realise that the CEO is being malicious against him and victimising him. I really hope she would get disciplined when this is all over with. Hopefully by the end of today, we will know either way whether he has got his job back or we are going to the tribunal. Thanks again

zzzLazyDaisy

riggers1982 wrote: »

The rep got a copy delivered to him this morning and my husband is currently in a meeting with him now to discuss. My husband doesn't really want to go back but feels he has to, to prove the point that he hasn't done anything wrong. I just wish the board would realise that the CEO is being malicious against him and victimising him. I really hope she would get disciplined when this is all over with. Hopefully by the end of today, we will know either way whether he has got his job back or we are going to the tribunal. Thanks again

Some facts of life....

The board are not going to discipline the CEO. They probably do realise what a little hitler she is, and how malicious she can be, but she's effectively in charge and ruling the roost. No-one wants to rock the boat because no-one wants the responsibility of facing her or dealing with the carnage afterwards.

Your husband is doing the right thing seeing the appeal through to the end as that will go well for him at tribunal. But it is highly unlikely that he will get his job back - that decision was made long ago and the board are not going to over-rule the CEO, so the whole performance is a charade and a farce. Again, that is good as far as tribunal proceedings are concerned - tribunals are not stupid, they spot this sort of thing a mile off.

I am totally confused as to why the union won't represent him in tribunal though. It sounds like exactly the sort of case they do normally take up. Hopefully the rep will be willing to go along and give evidence about the way they performed through the disciplinary procedure?

I remember representing an asian client once who was dismissed by a racist CEO on trumped up charges. The appeal board upheld the decision. Under cross examination at tribunal it became evident that the chair of the appeal board did not really understand why she had been dismissed and he did not really understand the appeals process or what his role was. When asked how they had come to the decision to uphold the dismissal he said 'because she (the CEO) told us to'.

We won our case.......