Sacked when partner imprisoned.

frilly_knickers

My niece is a school dinner lady, she has two children aged 5 and 7 and works at their school, she has been working there for about 16 months.
Her partner has just been sentenced to 3 years in prison for a motoring offence, from what I can gather he was driving without insurance and while being banned from driving.
They have been together for over ten years, and although he is, in my opinion not the perfect partner for her, his is a good father and provider and has always worked.
The problem is since finding out about his imprisonment the headmistress of the school she works at has dismissed her from the end of term.
Now she is in a situation whereby she has no income at all, they have debts which are in her partners name, which he can obviously not pay.
She is in turmoil, is it acceptable to punish someone for their partners failings, and does she have to pay the loans and debts in his name, up until the crime, everything was paid up to date with no problems.

McKneff

That is absolutely outrageous. I don't know what she can do, I just hope that someone can come along and suggest something.

3 years seems a long time for a traffic offence to be honest, are yu sure it it not something else as well.

frilly_knickers

McKneff wrote: »

That is absolutely outrageous. I don't know what she can do, I just hope that someone can come along and suggest something.

3 years seems a long time for a traffic offence to be honest, are yu sure it it not something else as well.

It is not a first offence for the same thing, plus he was banned for drink driving initially.

amersall

All I know is any debts in her partners sole name are his, she cannot be made to pay them.
I think it strange that she has been sacked because of the offence her partner committed, maybe schools do this? I know that you have a CRB check to work with children, don't know if this applies to anyone in the household though, hopefully somebody will post who knows why this may have happened.

As she was sacked because of this maybe she could claim income based JSA? as this was not her fault.

frilly_knickers

She discussed with the headmistress who said that the governors had made the decision and it was not her choice. They said that they thought it was inappropriate to have her remain in employment. As she has not been there for 2 years it appears she cannot even go to a tribunal.
She is also worried about bullying of the children, which is another matter.
The whole incident is so upsetting for the whole family.

Takeaway_Addict

If she started before Apr 5th or 6th 2012 (can't remember) then yes she can goto a tribunal as she only needed 1 years employment for protection against unfair dismissal.

If she was employed after this date then yes two years I'm afraid.

Very wrong of the employer!

Dunroamin

frilly_knickers wrote: »

It is not a first offence for the same thing, plus he was banned for drink driving initially.

I still think that there might be more to it than you've been told.

Takeaway_Addict

Dunroamin wrote: »

I still think that there might be more to it than you've been told.

either way its irrelivent

Funky_Bold_Ribena

Frilly - what actual date did she start work there? It really makes a difference.

anamenottaken

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

If she started before Apr 5th or 6th 2012 (can't remember) then yes she can goto a tribunal as she only needed 1 years employment for protection against unfair dismissal.

If she was employed after this date then yes two years I'm afraid.

Very wrong of the employer!

It is if someone started on or before 5 April 2012 which determines that only one year's service is required in order to bring an unfair dismissal case to an ET.

Some time ago it was agreed that, in normal circumstances, changes to employment law would be applied as from 6 April or 1 October.

anamenottaken

frilly_knickers wrote: »

She discussed with the headmistress who said that the governors had made the decision and it was not her choice. They said that they thought it was inappropriate to have her remain in employment. As she has not been there for 2 years it appears she cannot even go to a tribunal.
She is also worried about bullying of the children, which is another matter.
The whole incident is so upsetting for the whole family.

Governors were ill advised - if the wrong-doing was solely motoring-related.