question about 2 year rule...

zarf2007

I just want to understand, with the 2 year rule where you have next to zero rights when you first start a job, other than the sex/race discrimination grounds, can employers really just get rid of you for no reason?

i.e. if a manager just said 'I dont like your shoes, i want you out', as long as HR went along with it legally could they kick you out (if you have been there less than 2 years) and you have no comeback?

If thats true I really cannot understand why the general public let the tories change this from 1 year without a fight....

Undervalued

Yes, you are basically correct regarding unfair dismissal although there are also few other protected reasons.

An employee can also claim "wrongful dismissal" (which is in effect breach of contract) and there is no minimum period of employment for that.

It is not just the Tories that put it up. It has been as high as two years in the past, including under Labour governments, and also as low as six months.

Realistically, if your face doesn't fit and a firm treads carefully, there have always been ways of getting rid at little or no cost.

agrinnall

zarf2007 wrote: »

If thats true I really cannot understand why the general public let the tories change this from 1 year without a fight....

Yes it is true. You're part of the general public, what did you do to fight it?

bluenoseam

The general public can do diddly squat about it outside the one day a year where they can elect people, after that you're powerless to stop them in all reality!

zarf2007

bluenoseam wrote: »

The general public can do diddly squat about it outside the one day a year where they can elect people, after that you're powerless to stop them in all reality!

Exactly...

agrinnall

zarf2007 wrote: »

Exactly...

Well you're the one who brought the general public into the thread in the first place...

discat11

I think the only real difference is they have to give you a reason and a notice period after 2 years isn't it?

If the company want you out no matter how long you've worked there then provided it cannot be proven as 'discriminatory' then why should there be any comeback?
An employment contract is for you to get paid for doing xxx, if they don't want you to do xxx anymore why should they continue to employ you?

LegalSec

Don’t give up. If you have worked somewhere for one year and have been sacked because your idiot bosses don’t like your shoes then an application to the Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal would fail – it just would not be accepted.

So what you need to do is to bring a case for discrimination, which can be brought even if you have only worked there 5 minutes (or less).

Find out if (i) any one has worn similar shoes and not got sacked; or (ii) if someone has been sacked having spent less than two years in the workplace for another set of offences and had proper warnings and disciplinary meetings rather than just being ‘let go’. If the matter goes to Tribunal the company has to disclose this information to the Court.

In those cases, and if the other person involved was either a different gender, age, or race or perhaps had better health than you (or perhaps much worse health than you) then pursue with full force a case for discrimination. If you start looking, the evidence can often be found.

The payouts are quite large if you win and the publicity so negative that many firms will do anything to avoid the case ending up at a tribunal.

Two other points you raise.
1. Never ever trust HR. They so often get things wrong because they only say what management want them to say.

2. Why did the Tories get the 1 year rule extended to 2 years? Just read some of the responses on this forum and you will feel that a sizable number of the contributors automatically take the side of bosses, big business and most of all ‘authority’ rather than the average Joe or Joanna in the street who isn’t perfect but still in the 21st Century losses everything for being a few minutes late to work, not saying the right things, or having an off day and screwing up a bit (or wearing the wrong shoes!!). Good luck!!

tomtontom

LegalSec wrote: »

Don’t give up. If you have worked somewhere for one year and have been sacked because your idiot bosses don’t like your shoes then an application to the Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal would fail – it just would not be accepted.

So what you need to do is to bring a case for discrimination, which can be brought even if you have only worked there 5 minutes (or less).

Find out if (i) any one has worn similar shoes and not got sacked; or (ii) if someone has been sacked having spent less than two years in the workplace for another set of offences and had proper warnings and disciplinary meetings rather than just being ‘let go’. If the matter goes to Tribunal the company has to disclose this information to the Court.

In those cases, and if the other person involved was either a different gender, age, or race or perhaps had better health than you (or perhaps much worse health than you) then pursue with full force a case for discrimination. If you start looking, the evidence can often be found.

The payouts are quite large if you win and the publicity so negative that many firms will do anything to avoid the case ending up at a tribunal.

Two other points you raise.
1. Never ever trust HR. They so often get things wrong because they only say what management want them to say.

2. Why did the Tories get the 1 year rule extended to 2 years? Just read some of the responses on this forum and you will feel that a sizable number of the contributors automatically take the side of bosses, big business and most of all ‘authority’ rather than the average Joe or Joanna in the street who isn’t perfect but still in the 21st Century losses everything for being a few minutes late to work, not saying the right things, or having an off day and screwing up a bit (or wearing the wrong shoes!!). Good luck!!

So you're saying to fabricate a discrimination case in the hope they'll settle out of court?

Pretty shameful.

Undervalued

LegalSec wrote: »

So what you need to do is to bring a case for discrimination, which can be brought even if you have only worked there 5 minutes (or less).

Find out if (i) any one has worn similar shoes and not got sacked; or (ii) if someone has been sacked having spent less than two years in the workplace for another set of offences and had proper warnings and disciplinary meetings rather than just being ‘let go’. If the matter goes to Tribunal the company has to disclose this information to the Court.

Unless the shoes happen to have a religious significance neither of the examples given would amount to unlawful discrimination!!

Fabricating evidence for a legal case can amount to attempting to pervert the course of justice. A very serious criminal offence.

But then, as a Legal Sec I would have thought you would know that!

martinsurrey

LegalSec wrote: »

Don’t give up. If you have worked somewhere for one year and have been sacked because your idiot bosses don’t like your shoes then an application to the Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal would fail – it just would not be accepted.

So what you need to do is to bring a case for discrimination, which can be brought even if you have only worked there 5 minutes (or less).

Find out if (i) any one has worn similar shoes and not got sacked; or (ii) if someone has been sacked having spent less than two years in the workplace for another set of offences and had proper warnings and disciplinary meetings rather than just being ‘let go’. If the matter goes to Tribunal the company has to disclose this information to the Court.

In those cases, and if the other person involved was either a different gender, age, or race or perhaps had better health than you (or perhaps much worse health than you) then pursue with full force a case for discrimination. If you start looking, the evidence can often be found.

The payouts are quite large if you win and the publicity so negative that many firms will do anything to avoid the case ending up at a tribunal.

Two other points you raise.
1. Never ever trust HR. They so often get things wrong because they only say what management want them to say.

2. Why did the Tories get the 1 year rule extended to 2 years? Just read some of the responses on this forum and you will feel that a sizable number of the contributors automatically take the side of bosses, big business and most of all ‘authority’ rather than the average Joe or Joanna in the street who isn’t perfect but still in the 21st Century losses everything for being a few minutes late to work, not saying the right things, or having an off day and screwing up a bit (or wearing the wrong shoes!!). Good luck!!

Its !!!! like this that got the 1 year rule raised to 2 years.