Advice please 16 year old dismissed gross misconduct

monty-doggy

Can I firstly just say well done to your son for having a job while studying, this must have been a real knock to his confidence and I really hope he is able to be on from it.

What training was he given to be able to build these bikes? How long ago was the training and has he ever had a refresher?

I would argue the punishment I.e gross misconduct is far too harsh but sadly these companies can get rid of you for any reason they see fit within two years.

I would appeal and try to negotiate a reference and payment of notice.
Taking the employer to a tribunal will be expensive and there no guarantee you will win.

I'd do the appeal, and then try to help him get a new job and move on from it.

I am sorry there was an injured child but this does not automatically make it your sons fault.

colino

Well done him for having a job, but if he built up the bike (a customer service) and didn't even tighten up the stem well enough, no doubt his employers are now wondering how many more claims will be coming in. While a free safety check and service is offered, it's not part of the contract and if an employee didn't assemble the bike properly in the first place, he and they have no defence.
Put it down to experience.

Undervalued

bristol_pilot wrote: »

Damages for wrongful dismissal would be for payment in lieu of notice. This is a lad doing a part-time job, in the unlikely event of a successful claim the payment would be not worth the bother.

If I were the employer here, I'd fight any such claim tooth and nail as their business reputation is at stake. For part of a bike to collapse after 6 weeks use is not normal and if the Company's resposne had been to try and pin the blame on the customer as some posters here have suggested that would have been an absolute disgrace.

The lad would qualify for full remission of fees so it would cost nothing to file a claim in this case.

If, as you suggest, the company would feel it worth "fighting tooth and nail" that will cost them a substantial amount which they will never see back. It could also get them terrible publicity. I suspect they would be far more inclined to reach a COT3 settlement via ACAS with a confidentiality clause to protect their interests and an agreed glowing reference to protect the lad.

bristol_pilot

They'd fight it. If they are not seen to protect the safety of the public ultimately they will not have a business at all, far far worse publicity than dismissing someone for not doing their job properly. I work in a safety critical industry, those who put the public at risk by act or omission are always dismissed and the unions support such dismissals as they know it protects the jobs of the others. Not a chance that this lad will get his job back IMO, a child has been injured after all.

vodkafrog

Thanks for all the responses thus far. Just to add he hadn't had any formal training re building bikes this was due to take place soon, he had just shown by another member of staff what to do . He had on several occasions been called in for extra shifts as they were often very short staffed and it was not unusual for him to be left alone in the bike department to build bikes and serve customers. ( I had not been unaware of this until today, otherwise I would have voiced my concerns). Just a quick question if he did go to appeal can he choose who he takes with him for support, does it have to be another employee of the company or could it be a parent. I do feel aggrieved that they have allowed a minor to build bikes without adequate supervision. Not likely information the would like to be in the public arena.

vodkafrog

bristol_pilot wrote: »

They'd fight it. If they are not seen to protect the safety of the public ultimately they will not have a business at all, far far worse publicity than dismissing someone for not doing their job properly. I work in a safety critical industry, those who put the public at risk by act or omission are always dismissed and the unions support such dismissals as they know it protects the jobs of the others. Not a chance that this lad will get his job back IMO, a child has been injured after all.

I would not want him to get his job back, I feel they have not offered him adequate training and left him vulnerable to what has happened. I suppose my question is what is the employees responsibility in this... I would like him to have been able to resign, the gross misconduct seems unfair

ohreally

From a cycle handbook...
P 40
Before you ride - Check:-
• Wheels are tightly secured.
• Tyres are inflated to correct pressure (indicated on side-wall of tyre). Also check
condition of tyres for cuts etc. (Note: It is a good idea to carry a puncture repair kit or
spare inner tube, tyre levers and pump with you).
• Handlebar, stem and headset locknut are tight and that the steering turns smoothly.
• Brakes – Squeeze levers to ensure sufficient pressure can be applied without the
lever touching the handlebars. Also ensure brake blocks are aligned correctly with
rim and the blocks are not badly worn.
• Brake cables are not frayed at the end.
• Gears operate correctly.
• Wheels are running true by spinning them. You can also check that mudguards, if
fitted, are correctly adjusted at this time.
• Saddle is adjusted to the correct riding position and the seat pin is tightened.

They also inform...P13

Inevitably, kid’s bikes take a battering,being thrown down or dropped onto the pavement and suffering general neglect.

http://media.raleigh.co.uk/catalogues/Raleigh/Raleigh-Owners-Guide.pdf

I'm sure other manufacturers will be similar.

Go to appeal. I'd argue the employer may have set him up to fail. They must shoulder responsibility and be accountable.

jobbingmusician

bristol_pilot wrote: »

They'd fight it. If they are not seen to protect the safety of the public ultimately they will not have a business at all, far far worse publicity than dismissing someone for not doing their job properly. I work in a safety critical industry, those who put the public at risk by act or omission are always dismissed and the unions support such dismissals as they know it protects the jobs of the others. Not a chance that this lad will get his job back IMO, a child has been injured after all.

Exactly the reason they are likely to settle! Would you buy from a company who puts an untrained or scantily trained 16 year old in charge of a critical safety function?

bristol_pilot

jobbingmusician wrote: »

Exactly the reason they are likely to settle! Would you buy from a company who puts an untrained or scantily trained 16 year old in charge of a critical safety function?

So the argument as to why he should not have been dismissed is, in part, that they should not have employed him in the first place?

And another poster again suggesting that the Company ought to try and pin the blame on the Customer for not reading the manual! No-one is going to get away with that in the 21st century.

Undervalued

bristol_pilot wrote: »

They'd fight it. If they are not seen to protect the safety of the public ultimately they will not have a business at all, far far worse publicity than dismissing someone for not doing their job properly. I work in a safety critical industry, those who put the public at risk by act or omission are always dismissed and the unions support such dismissals as they know it protects the jobs of the others. Not a chance that this lad will get his job back IMO, a child has been injured after all.

Sorry, I totally disagree in this case.

This could lead to very damaging publicity for the company who have employed an untrained minor in a safety critical role.

Handled carefully, with implied threats of sob stories in the local & national press, would have them running to settle and keep it quiet.