Sacked, made to work their notice?

CameronLove

This is just me being curious about a friends situation and not about me personally, so I don't know all the details nor do I need any proper legal advice. But basically......

A friend of mine works for a major supermarket for a couple of years, and has been getting formal warnings for having the occasional sick days (even though she provides GP sick notes and Consultant letters showing she has an illness that may require the occasional sick day).

Recently she was called in to the office to be told that as she had already received a final written warning for being off sick (true), and as she was off sick again, she was to be dismissed and let go from her job.

BUT...... they have refused to put it in writing. AND have insisted she works her 6 weeks notice period still. At first she was upset so didn't think about what they were saying, but now she is calmer about it a day later, she has called them to ask them to send her the formal dismissal letter and they have refused to send her one.

My question is does any of that make any sense? I thought if a company sacked you, they sacked you and you had to leave the premises there and then....... since when do companies tell you that they are sacking you, but expect you to still go in for 6 more weeks working for them? And why is none of this in a formal letter and they refused to give her one? She would need a formal letter to take to a job center to prove she didnt just walk out of a job, to claim benefits surely?

To me it sounds a bit shady, like they are trying to make it appear she has handed in her notice and working her 6 weeks notice out, rather than admit they are sacking her?

Anyway, I am just really curious if they can actually do that to her or whether it is some sort of loophole they are trying to get away with to make it appear she is leaving of her own free will to avoid any unfair dismissal claims, etc?

Thanks

TELLIT01

You say she has worked there for 'a couple of years'. It will make a difference to her rights if she has been there for over 2 years. Under 2 years and there are very few rights.
Really just a couple of observations. 6 weeks notice after 2 years seems a lot, unless she is fairly high up the pecking order. If she doesn't have anything in writing there is little to confirm that she has had her employment terminated. It does seem very odd.

Undervalued

CameronLove wrote: »

This is just me being curious about a friends situation and not about me personally, so I don't know all the details nor do I need any proper legal advice. But basically......

A friend of mine works for a major supermarket for a couple of years, and has been getting formal warnings for having the occasional sick days (even though she provides GP sick notes and Consultant letters showing she has an illness that may require the occasional sick day).

Recently she was called in to the office to be told that as she had already received a final written warning for being off sick (true), and as she was off sick again, she was to be dismissed and let go from her job.

BUT...... they have refused to put it in writing. AND have insisted she works her 6 weeks notice period still. At first she was upset so didn't think about what they were saying, but now she is calmer about it a day later, she has called them to ask them to send her the formal dismissal letter and they have refused to send her one.

My question is does any of that make any sense? I thought if a company sacked you, they sacked you and you had to leave the premises there and then....... since when do companies tell you that they are sacking you, but expect you to still go in for 6 more weeks working for them? And why is none of this in a formal letter and they refused to give her one? She would need a formal letter to take to a job center to prove she didnt just walk out of a job, to claim benefits surely?

To me it sounds a bit shady, like they are trying to make it appear she has handed in her notice and working her 6 weeks notice out, rather than admit they are sacking her?

Anyway, I am just really curious if they can actually do that to her or whether it is some sort of loophole they are trying to get away with to make it appear she is leaving of her own free will to avoid any unfair dismissal claims, etc?

Thanks

No.

Unless you are sacked for gross misconduct the firm must give one week's notice for each complete year of employment (up to a maximum of 12) or whatever notice is specified in the contract if that is greater.

If they choose not to let the employee work their notice they must still pay them for it.

So they are quite entitled to require the employee to work their notice.

Nothing stops the employer giving more notice than the law actually requires.

Paid holiday accrues during the notice period although the employer can require the employee to take some or all of their remaining holiday during the notice period. Again, if they don't, they will have to pay them for it after their departure.

CameronLove

It seems odd though that a company like a supermarket, would try to force her to work her notice....... why would they want an angry and bitter woman working the shop floor causing chaos knowing that she has nothing to lose as they have already dismissed her?

Thanks for explaining it

tykesi

CameronLove wrote: »

It seems odd though that a company like a supermarket, would try to force her to work her notice....... why would they want an angry and bitter woman working the shop floor causing chaos knowing that she has nothing to lose as they have already dismissed her?

Thanks for explaining it

Because any normal, decent person wouldn't be 'causing chaos'.

Heliflyguy

tykesi wrote: »

Because any normal, decent person wouldn't be 'causing chaos'.

And wouldn't any normal decent company supply a formal letter regarding the dismissal and not refuse to give one?

sangie595

She has worked there for more than two years, so she has the right to a written reason for her dismissal. That is a legal right and actionable in itself. She should write formally to the manager, copying it to HR saying that she is asserting her right to a written reason for dismissal, and reserves the right to further legal action, without notice, is they do not comply. The employer is required to respond within 14 days.

Until I have a written reason for dismissal, in her shoes I would advise her to act on the basis that she is not dismissed, and continue to report for work every day without exception - even after her "notice" expires, and force their hand in making them turn her away from work. She needs to make sure she has a witness for this.

What is her condition - does it constitute a disability?

PasturesNew

Many companies still want you to work your notice.

They probably want her gone soonest, to be honest .... but they've looked at the holiday charts and realised all the mums are about to become unavailable to work as it's the school holidays when they do either 0 hours or minimum cover only ..... hence the "6 weeks notice" - that's to cover their 4rses over the summer holiday time I bet.

Undervalued

sangie595 wrote: »

She has worked there for more than two years, so she has the right to a written reason for her dismissal. That is a legal right and actionable in itself. She should write formally to the manager, copying it to HR saying that she is asserting her right to a written reason for dismissal, and reserves the right to further legal action, without notice, is they do not comply. The employer is required to respond within 14 days.

Until I have a written reason for dismissal, in her shoes I would advise her to act on the basis that she is not dismissed, and continue to report for work every day without exception - even after her "notice" expires, and force their hand in making them turn her away from work. She needs to make sure she has a witness for this.

Yes and no!

Yes she has a "right" to a written reason and could, in theory, take legal action on that point. Whether that is cost effective either in money or time is another matter.

However a contract (or termination of contract) does not have to be in writing to be valid.

If she does as you suggest in your first paragraph she is acknowledging that she has been dismissed making the second paragraph irrelevant!

If pretends not to know she has been dismissed then she might be able to string the notice out further. However, strictly speaking that would be fraudulent because she clearly does know!

Obviously she might have grounds to claim unfair dismissal but again, she can only do that if she admits she knows she has been dismissed!

sangie595

Undervalued wrote: »

Yes and no!

Yes she has a "right" to a written reason and could, in theory, take legal action on that point. Whether that is cost effective either in money or time is another matter.

However a contract (or termination of contract) does not have to be in writing to be valid.

If she does as you suggest in your first paragraph she is acknowledging that she has been dismissed making the second paragraph irrelevant!

If pretends not to know she has been dismissed then she might be able to string the notice out further. However, strictly speaking that would be fraudulent because she clearly does know!

Obviously she might have grounds to claim unfair dismissal but again, she can only do that if she admits she knows she has been dismissed!

You are aware of the meaning of the word "until"?

Yes a verbal dismissal is valid. But you cannot prove it. So what happens when the employer says she simply didn't turn up to work one day. Without a WRIITEN dismissal notice, they can claim she simply walked away. And if they didn't intend to do this, why refuse to put it in writing when that is a legal right anyway? And acknowledging that she has been dismissed is not the point. The point is that they must say that they have dismissed her, and why they have done so. Whether it is worth a legal case has no relevance - but whether unfair dismissal is worth it is an entirely different issue. And again, why are they hiding, if they have nothing to hide?

Claiming it is fraud to say she does not know she has been dismissed is completely ridiculous. You do know what fraud is in law? UNTIL the employer acknowledges that she has been dismissed, she would be an idiot to simply accept a verbal dismissal that she cannot prove has happened. By continuing to turn up to work she is forcing them to admit to an action that they are refusing to confirm in writing.

She may indeed have a claim for unfair dismissal. But she won't have if she has no evidence that she has been dismissed! Following my advice gains that evidence. Following yours doesn't.

TBagpuss

CameronLove wrote: »

since when do companies tell you that they are sacking you, but expect you to still go in for 6 more weeks working for them?

Why would they pay her to do nothing for 6 weeks?

They haven't sacked her for misconduct, they have dismissed her, so just as. if she had handed in her notice and said she had chosen to move on, she'd have had to work her notice period, the same s true in this situation where it is they who have given her notice.

People are normally only walked out then and there if they are sacked for gross misconduct, or where they are in a sensitive position and the employer feels that it is better to pay them their wages in lieu of notice, or to put them on gardening leave.

Although it is understandable that she feels bitter, she should bear in mind that she may still need a reference from them, so it would be wise for her to work normally and not seek to 'cause chaos'.

The lack of confirmation of dismissal is odd - is she sure they are refusing, as opposed to it being (for instance) a local manager not giving her a letter because that has to come from head office / HR ?