Dismissed without reason during probation period

spiritus

A friend of mine was recently dismissed two months into his probation period.


He was called into the office, told he was not suitable for the role and told to pack his stuff and leave.


The role is sales targeted and he had been hitting the targets set for him.


Throughout his two months there assessors from head office would visit each site to see how new employees were doing and assess them. Each assessment of him was very, very positive.


At no time were any problems flagged nor was he given any direction or feedback that they were unhappy with him or that he should fulfil his role in a manner that was more suitable to them.


A complete bolt out of the blue.


I expect he hasn't got a leg to stand on due to the short time he has been there but I wanted to ask are there some minimum legal requirements that the employer is obliged to follow ?


If an employee is not given any feedback to their performance, or worse.........they are given POSITIVE feedback and then dismissed for some vague reason is this legal ?


Does the employee not have any defence if their manager thinks their face doesn't fit ?

Southend1

This is completely legal unless he can prove illegal discrimination based on a protected characteristic I.e. race, gender, religion, sexual orientation etc

Sadly this is the reality of the Tories' neoliberal economic dream.

Takeaway_Addict

Southend1 wrote: »

This is completely legal unless he can prove illegal discrimination based on a protected characteristic I.e. race, gender, religion, sexual orientation etc

Sadly this is the reality of the Tories' neoliberal economic dream.

Under the 'great ' Labour he still would have had no recourse as he hadn't even made a year and wasn't it Lieber that got rid of statutory disciplinary procedures?

gettingtheresometime

Southend1 wrote: »

This is completely legal unless he can prove illegal discrimination based on a protected characteristic I.e. race, gender, religion, sexual orientation etc

Sadly this is the reality of the Tories' neoliberal economic dream.

But in the interests of balance, this would have been the case beforehand as well.

DKLS

Sometimes you face doesnt fit regardless or who is in political power.

Southend1

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

Under the 'great ' Labour he still would have had no recourse as he hadn't even made a year and wasn't it Lieber that got rid of statutory disciplinary procedures?

Not sure why you used quotation marks for "great" but just to clarify that it wasn't quoting something I said! I don't think any of the main political parties have good records on labour laws in recent years.

spiritus

Thanks guys (although the political stuff has moved things away from my post).


So a probation period means the employer can dismiss a worker without warning or prior discussion with no specific reason for the dismissal ?


I found a passage from a UK solicitor's website that isn't consistent with the some of the answers provided on my thread and I am confused now


"
A business must have a statutory fair reason for dismissal (i.e. performance or conduct) and must have acted fairly in dismissing the employee. We advise that employers still follow a process of inviting the probation employee to a meeting in the same way as they would for any another employee. The reason for this is to avoid being accused of dismissal for some other reason other than performance or conduct that could give rise to a claim.
It is not automatically fair to dismiss a probationer; rather the employee’s probationary status will be one factor that will take into account as to whether the dismissal was fair. An employment tribunal would apply the statutory test applicable to all employees, i.e. whether the employer acted reasonably in all the circumstances (including the size and administrative resources of his undertaking) in treating the reason for the dismissal as a fair reason for dismissal."

Southend1

It's not to do with the probation status, it's because the Tories extended to 2 years the period when employees don't have protection from unfair dismissal.

"Generally, to claim unfair dismissal, you have to have worked for your employer for at least one year if you started working for your employer before 6 April 2012 or two years if you started on or after 6 April 2012."

(http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/work_e/work_work_comes_to_an_end_e/dismissal.htm)

InsideInsurance

Probation period is a red herring and irrelevant to this case other than how it may effect notice period due etc.

Irrespective of probation period or not you can be dismissed for any reason other than for the protected characteristics in the first two years of your employment. It used to be in the first year but as above it was relatively recently extended.

Undervalued

spiritus wrote: »

So a probation period means the employer can dismiss a worker without warning or prior discussion with no specific reason for the dismissal ?


I found a passage from a UK solicitor's website that isn't consistent with the some of the answers provided on my thread and I am confused now


"
A business must have a statutory fair reason for dismissal (i.e. performance or conduct) and must have acted fairly in dismissing the employee. We advise that employers still follow a process of inviting the probation employee to a meeting in the same way as they would for any another employee. The reason for this is to avoid being accused of dismissal for some other reason other than performance or conduct that could give rise to a claim.
It is not automatically fair to dismiss a probationer; rather the employee’s probationary status will be one factor that will take into account as to whether the dismissal was fair. An employment tribunal would apply the statutory test applicable to all employees, i.e. whether the employer acted reasonably in all the circumstances (including the size and administrative resources of his undertaking) in treating the reason for the dismissal as a fair reason for dismissal."

This is the problem with lifting bits of "law" from the internet without understanding the wider picture.

Whether the dismissal was fair or not is irrelevant unless there is any redress open to him. Unless he could argue that the real reason for his dismissal was for one of the handful of legally protected reasons (e.g. race, gender, sexual orientation etc) then he cannot make a claim for unfair dismissal as he has not been employed for two years.

As has been mentioned, a "probationary period" is largely irrelevant for employment law purposes. Depending on his contract it might have given him certain extra benefits if the firm had deemed him to have passed it further down the line.

He is entitled to a week's notice (or pay in lieu) unless his contract specifies more in which case the greater amount would apply.

He is also entitled to be paid for any untaken holiday, probably about four days unless he has taken any leave during the two months.

Should they fail to pay the notice or holiday then he could make a claim for that as there is no minimum qualifying period for such claims.

Undervalued

Southend1 wrote: »

it's because the Tories extended to 2 years the period when employees don't have protection from unfair dismissal.

Oh come on!

He has been employed for TWO MONTHS. The shortest ever qualifying period to claim unfair dismissal was six months and that was many, many years ago (c. 25 + ??). So even then this chap wouldn't have been protected!