Sacked when partner imprisoned.

zzzLazyDaisy

frilly_knickers wrote: »

I believe she started the job at the beginning of January 2012, after the Christmas holidays, when her youngest started school.

Apologies, totally missed that post! If she did start after the Christmas holidays, in Jan 2012 (and not, for example, after the Easter holidays) then she only needs 12 months service, and she has the right to make a claim to a tribunal.

Based on the information provided on this thread she would win (no fair reason for dismissal, and failure to follow procedures).

OP if you can confirm this, we can help her to draft an ET claim, which can be lodged online.

dizzyrascal

I hate to say this and I have the deepest sympathy for the OP's niece but people (especially school governors) do like to tarnish everyone with the same brush
People do it all the time, children and partners are judged as criminals if the father is in prison.
Unfortunately, any association with a "criminal" is almost the same as being one in some people's eyes.

zzzLazyDaisy

aileth wrote: »

where they have got the info from?

She told the headmistress herself. That's her reward for honesty.

aileth

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

She told the headmistress herself. That's her reward for honesty.

Wow, just wow!! That is incredible.

jobbingmusician

OP, you clearly have employment rights as you have been employed for over 12 months on a contract starting before April 2012. You should ask the school for a copy of their disciplinary policy.

Were you called to a disciplinary meeting before you were dismissed?
Were you told of the right to be accompanied to this meeting?

Employment Tribunals decide whether employers have followed their own procedures, and whether they have acted as reasonable employers. Potentially I suspect this employer has done neither. But, as one of the wise posters here said (was it LazyDaisy? Someone whose experience I respect, anyway) GET THE CLAIM IN TO THE ET QUICKLY, BEFORE 29th JULY. You can do it online. If you were actually sacked on the spot, put in an ET for unfair dismissal - as they followed no known procedure!

paddedjohn

OldBeanz wrote: »

Is there no car to sell?

Why???? Will it help her get her job back??

jacques_chirac

ValHaller wrote: »

I can't see that. If she was complicit enough for the school to be one whit justified, then she should have been convicted herself of something. But she was not even charged, it seems.

Nonsense - the burden of proof would be entirely different in a criminal case, plus a prosecution would be unlikely to fulfil the public interest test.

Many people do things that are morally (and legally) dubious that would be serious enough to warrant dismissal, but not serious enough to warrant prosecution.

Galaxy1987

jacques_chirac wrote: »

Nonsense - the burden of proof would be entirely different in a criminal case, plus a prosecution would be unlikely to fulfil the public interest test.

Many people do things that are morally (and legally) dubious that would be serious enough to warrant dismissal, but not serious enough to warrant prosecution.

But the point is she has not done anything or been accused of doing anything. A crime was committed and the sole person responsible has been convicted. There is no implication she has anything to do with it other than it being her partners.

That's like me being sacked after my partners steals from tesco. I have no control over the person.

ValHaller

jacques_chirac wrote: »

Nonsense - the burden of proof would be entirely different in a criminal case, plus a prosecution would be unlikely to fulfil the public interest test.

Many people do things that are morally (and legally) dubious that would be serious enough to warrant dismissal, but not serious enough to warrant prosecution.

Equally, your user name is the name of a french man. You should be sacked for eating snails. It's called guilt by association.

Dunroamin

jacques_chirac wrote: »

Playing devil's advocate - I wonder if the school have taken this action because they see the lady as being complicit in the offence, albeit not in a criminal sense, and hence have sufficient grounds to doubt her good character - breach of mutual trust and confidence? Given the repeated actions of the partner, and the likelihood that she was aware of what he was doing, I can (tentatively) see why they might have taken the action.

Was she, for example, in the car when he was driving?