Dismissed without reason during probation period

Takeaway_Addict

Southend1 wrote: »

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)

You keep making out that the Tories are at fault, but would the OP have been protected under Lieber.....no.

suicidebob

The problem with these types of threads is that it's usually a 3rd party parroting one side of a story.

Do people just do this so their lopsided view of the facts can't be challenged by other forum users?

spiritus

suicidebob wrote: »

The problem with these types of threads is that it's usually a 3rd party parroting one side of a story.

Do people just do this so their lopsided view of the facts can't be challenged by other forum users?

It isn't your job to question the facts.


If you're unwilling to believe what I have written then simply do not contribute to the thread. You have a choice.


Practically every thread can be questioned for its veracity but it's pointless doing so.


I've given you the facts as I know them. Either deal with what I have written or move onto another thread.

Southend1

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

You keep making out that the Tories are at fault, but would the OP have been protected under Lieber.....no.

No he wouldn't, but then I never said he would, did I?

There are more than two political parties in the UK.

Also any govt could have chosen to reduce the period but the Tories chose instead to increase it.

Takeaway_Addict

Southend1 wrote: »

No he wouldn't, but then I never said he would, did I?

There are more than two political parties in the UK.

Also any govt could have chosen to reduce the period but the Tories chose instead to increase it.

Its not even relevant for the OP though yet you felt it ok to bring up.

Southend1

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

Its not even relevant for the OP though yet you felt it ok to bring up.

I was under the impression this was a discussion forum? Though if you don't want to discuss something someone mentions because you feel it is irrelevant then nobody will think any less of you for not doing so.

quietriot

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

Lieber

How's that 'arguing like a grown up' working out for you?

Undervalued

Southend1 wrote: »

Also any govt could have chosen to reduce the period but the Tories chose instead to increase it.

Unless you are seriously suggesting that whichever party you support (clearly not the Tories) would have reduced the UD qualifying period to below two months it is completely irrelevant to the OP's question.

Even if you are it is still hypothetical!

Southend1

Undervalued wrote: »

Unless you are seriously suggesting that whichever party you support (clearly not the Tories) would have reduced the UD qualifying period to below two months it is completely irrelevant to the OP's question.

Even if you are it is still hypothetical!

Yes, but OP or other readers may be interested in the context and direction of travel of the relevant law.

If you aren't and don't want to join in the discussion then feel free not to!

gettingtheresometime

Southend1 wrote: »

No he wouldn't, but then I never said he would, did I?

There are more than two political parties in the UK.

Also any govt could have chosen to reduce the period but the Tories chose instead to increase it.

But why mention it?? Yes its perfectly true that the Tories chose to increase the length of time but it's totally irrelevant!