Unfair Dismissal/Breach of Contract/Gross Misconduct

tomtontom

Kitty78 wrote: »

What would be wrong?

If you have procedures in place for your staff that should include all staff not just the ones you favour.

It may not be fair in lay terms, but in legal terms unless you are being treated differently by reason of a protected characteristic, you have no protection. You're confusing what is morally right and wrong and what legal rights you (do not) have.

yvonne13_2

OP the point is your bosses wanted your role to be office based. You have no say in the matter as your job role could easily be amended meaning you would have to re-apply for your job.

[Deleted User]

By all means tell the employer how you feel and hope you find something else soon.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

xoid

For your information, If you weren't aggressive, abusive or threatening in anyway etc...

even if you were employed for less than 2 years, you may not qualify for 'unfair' dismissal, however, you may be able to take your employer for 'wrongful dismissal'. I would consult a solicitor regarding your options.

sangie595

xoid wrote: »

For your information, If you weren't aggressive, abusive or threatening in anyway etc...

even if you were employed for less than 2 years, you may not qualify for 'unfair' dismissal, however, you may be able to take your employer for 'wrongful dismissal'. I would consult a solicitor regarding your options.

Oh dear. IF there is a wrongful dismissal then the cost of the solicitor would more than wipe out the gains - wrongful dismissal claims would only cover contractual rights like being paid notice etc. Wrongful dismissal claims are only worth it if you are owed more than it would cost you to pursue them. There is no clear evidence here that that is the case.

FBaby

OP, internal procedures don't override the law, and that is that you can be dismissed without any reasons if you've worked for the company for less than 24 months. Yes, totally unfair, most will struggle to understand the rationale behind this, but legally, that's how it is and you can't challenge this.

I appreciate that my financial situation is not their concern but any good company would want to work with their employee that is satisfactory to everyone

No they don't. They concluded from your response that the meeting you were requesting was to ask for things that they were not prepared to give (ie. more money to make up for your additional costs), so they made the decision there was no point to have that meeting. Again, their decision.

What you need to do is look at your contract and work out what they owed you if they'd paid you in accordance to it. If that is more than what they offered, you need to decide if you want to challenge them on it or not (I assume deciding if the difference is worth it). If what they offered is more, than that is the end of it.

I do feel sympathy for you though, it is tough to go from thinking you are safe financially, getting on with your work, doing even extra, to finding yourself unemployed when you've done nothing wrong. I hope you don't let this experience beat you up and you quickly find something else you enjoy.

daytona0

I managed to read the whole thing this time around What a mission that was!!

In a nutshell: OP seems to be getting most of their due wages but possibly not their holiday money etc. In that respect you can probably take them to small claims, with evidence of course.

What worries me the most is that OP is turning this whole situation into a huge saga when the most important goal is to find a new job which can pay the bills/nursery fees.

Kitty78

I will be taking them to small claims if they don't pay me what I am owed.

As for turning it into a huge saga, I don't believe anyone should be treated in this way and I think the whole 2 year employment threshold is pretty poor.

It is basically saying if you have been employed for 2 years it is not ok to treat a member of staff this way but if you have been employed less than 2 years it is ok to treat them like !!!!.

Everyone has rights to be treated fairly and with respect, I for one would never treat someone in this way but unfortunately there are some nasty, manipulative, liars out there that have no idea about how to treat someone right.

As for work, I have been looking for work since the 13th January which was when they originally let me go, I have applied for work and so far had one interview. Part - time work in my sector is very scarce and what is out there is applied for by so many you rarely stand a chance.

Thanks for taking the time to read my thread though as many seem to comment only having read the first couple of lines.

xoid

This is the issue Kitty78,

Everyone is entitled to be treated with respect in the workplace, many employers throw the term 'Gross Misconduct' without actually thinking of how it could affect the employee.

Many individuals don't come back from it, some will commit suicide, some will become homeless. Unless
they have done something so terrible that an employer has feared for their life or the life of others then
employers should be held accountable if there is another course of action, instead of immediate dismissal.

I wish you the best of luck!

sangie595

xoid wrote: »

This is the issue Kitty78,

Everyone is entitled to be treated with respect in the workplace, many employers throw the term 'Gross Misconduct' without actually thinking of how it could affect the employee.

Many individuals don't come back from it, some will commit suicide, some will become homeless. Unless
they have done something so terrible that an employer has feared for their life or the life of others then
employers should be held accountable if there is another course of action, instead of immediate dismissal.

I wish you the best of luck!

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

Many employers throw the term " gross misconduct" because that is what their employees have committed. Not every time. But often enough. For example, aggressive and abusive behaviour by an employee is often deemed gross misconduct - the sort of thing like refusing to obey a reasonable instruction, pushing past someone, and swearing at them. In fact, exactly what you did. I think it is disingenuous to compare what you did to what happened in Kitty's case. Gross misconduct is not reserved for employees who threaten the lives of others. When they do that out is usually called a police matter. There are a lot of actions which may constitute gross misconduct, and they may not be life threatening, but they are serious and are actions that cannot be and should never be tolerated in the workplace.