Unfair Dismissal during Probationary Period

TBagpuss

As others have said, the employer can dismiss you for any non-discriminatory reason at any time during the first 2 years.

There is nothing in anything which you've postesd to suggest that there was any discriminatory reason.

Shoft work is not inherently discriminatory. discrimination occurs when someone is penelised or treated less well as a result of their protected characteristic. You would have to show that you were discriminated against in compariosn with other employees in the comapny, and that the discrimination was as a result of your gender or another protected characteristics. There are circumstnaces in wich requiring someone to work shofts might have a greater impact on women than on men, but that doesn't mean that evey woman who works shifts, or who is asked to work shofts, is suffering discrimination.

They have offered you a month's pay rather than the week you are entitled to. I would not assume that this means that the employer has a guilty conscious as jobbingmusician suggests, i think it is far more likely that they are aware that dealing with a claim for unfiar dismissal, even a totally spurious one which is doomed to failure, will take up time and energy that can be better used elsewhere. It's may well make better sece fro them to pay you 3 weeks extra than to have a manager spening time responding to correspondence or defending a UN claim.
It is also possible that that it is a gesture of goodwill, pure and simple. employers are human, after all, and it is perfectly possible that they feel they mde a mistake in taking you on but also understnad that q weeks notice is not very much. It may also be that they are aware that there is some ambiguaity abotu whther you would still be seen as being in the formal probationary period so they are interpreting that in your favour by paying the longer notice period.

jobbingmusician

Alice_Walker wrote: »

Anyone that pulls the sex discrimination card for a situation like this is doing all women a disservice. This is nothing to do with the OP being a woman, it's to do with the needs of the business.

(There is case law that broadly says shift work affects women more than men because they are more likely to have childcare needs, and hence it may be indirect discrimination. In my opinion it is cases like this (and the people that bring such cases) that set women's rights back years - we want to be treated as equals in the workplace, and that won't happen when employers exercise caution in fear of the next frivolous discrimination complaint.)

So your argument is that all indirect discrimination claims are doing women's rights a disservice? Yes, I agree that the employer has probably changed the contract because of the needs of the business.

Do you seriously agree that

1. employing someone, and then making a serious change to their contract, should not be challenged? I don't really care about the needs of the business. I care about employees being treated fairly. Employing someone on a 9-5 contract and then almost immediately changing it without any consultation is manifestly unfair.

2. employing someone, and then making a serious change to their contract which case law has agreed is indirect discrimination against women, should not be challenged? (According to you this is 'doing women a disservice'???) Sorry, where case law has already been agreed, it has been agreed BECAUSE it demonstrably disadvantages women.

lincroft1710

jobbingmusician wrote: »

Do you seriously agree that

employing someone, and then making a serious change to their contract, should not be challenged? I don't really care about the needs of the business. I care about employees being treated fairly. Employing someone on a 9-5 contract and then almost immediately changing it without any consultation is manifestly unfair.

Unfairness in itself is not breaking employment laws, only possibly when a protected characteristic is involved. The business need will always take precedence for obvious reasons.

Guest101

jobbingmusician wrote: »

So your argument is that all indirect discrimination claims are doing women's rights a disservice? Yes, I agree that the employer has probably changed the contract because of the needs of the business.

Do you seriously agree that

1. employing someone, and then making a serious change to their contract, should not be challenged? I don't really care about the needs of the business. I care about employees being treated fairly. Employing someone on a 9-5 contract and then almost immediately changing it without any consultation is manifestly unfair. - In what way? The law is quite clear on this. So we're talking morally? Would it be easier to swallow if they just sacked him or her?

2. employing someone, and then making a serious change to their contract which case law has agreed is indirect discrimination against women, should not be challenged? (According to you this is 'doing women a disservice'???) Sorry, where case law has already been agreed, it has been agreed BECAUSE it demonstrably disadvantages women.

That case law doesn't mean that women cannot work shifts.


And yes it does do a disservice, as what employer is going to hire a woman if there's even the possibility of the role requiring shift work??

sangie595

daytona0 wrote: »

Ignore what the employer did for a second...

You were only there for 3 weeks before you started questioning the way they did things... You have to be careful because they won't always support you after just 3 weeks on the job! ESPECIALLY if they are being told by their higher up bosses how to do things! You'd stand no chance I'm afraid. Can you honestly blame them for shipping you out?!

The optimal approach to situations like this is to keep your mouth shut whilst working hard to find a more suitable role. By opening your mouth you've cost yourself a job which could tide you over till a more suitable one came about. Life lesson I'm afraid.

As for the legalities of it, you need to have been employed for 2+ years or been discriminated against (protected characteristic). You haven't been. And don't listen to the person who said gender, because a male doing what you did would also not fit in with their shift requirements and would have been turfed out too.

^^^ This^^^

I have every sympathy because I'm also the sort who questions and pushes back. Luckily I now have an employer who pays me to be that sort! But I have to admit that 3 weeks is something of a record, even for me. Yes, they are a rubbish employer. And yes, they have been manifestly unfair in all of this. But I can see nothing at all that suggests they have broken the law. Any law.

I cannot agree that this may be indirect discrimination - I can see nothing that suggests this. But equally, I cannot agree with the posters who suggest that indirect discrimination is a "card". Indirect discrimination is an important aspect of law. People have been dismissed before now for caring responsibilities, for relationships to people with disabilities, and for being parents - to name but a few circumstances in which indirect discrimination may apply. Yes, life is unfair, and sometimes that is all it is. But sometimes it is not just unfair, it is about deliberately making it unfair for certain groups of people, but not others. Where that occurs, then it is right that the law try to address it. Anyone who has gone through the hoops of trying to make a discrimination claim of any sort should know that there isn't a card and it is far from easy.

daytona0

jobbingmusician wrote: »

So your argument is that all indirect discrimination claims are doing women's rights a disservice? Yes, I agree that the employer has probably changed the contract because of the needs of the business.

Do you seriously agree that

1. employing someone, and then making a serious change to their contract, should not be challenged? I don't really care about the needs of the business. I care about employees being treated fairly. Employing someone on a 9-5 contract and then almost immediately changing it without any consultation is manifestly unfair.

2. employing someone, and then making a serious change to their contract which case law has agreed is indirect discrimination against women, should not be challenged? (According to you this is 'doing women a disservice'???) Sorry, where case law has already been agreed, it has been agreed BECAUSE it demonstrably disadvantages women.

1. Hey I agree! Challenge it by all means. It is pretty dirty of them! BUT if you challenge it and they don't budge then you have to just accept it Unless you care to enlighten us on any specific law (not relating to a protected characteristic) which gives OP any further rights here. That's just the way things are right now. Its just a game.

2. What about the fact that OP found out about the 2nd person on the first day of their employment? That just doesn't make sense! Either 1. The company had this planned out in advance, irrespective of gender or 2. They've gone around the world to discriminate OP based on gender (they could have just rejected her at the interview stage and took on a male candidate! Nobodys the wiser!).

ABsolutely zero discrimination of any kind. Just a dirty company and an ex employee who couldn't play the game.

And cases like this one would be a disservice to women's rights. I am genuinely surprised that it was even brought up, and hope it hasn't planted a seed in OP's head.

FBaby

OP, I really feel for you. If I gave up a job to take one because the hours suited me to be told within a few weeks I would need to work a shift that didn't at all, I would be furious. So no, you are not being unreasonable with the way you feel. However, because somehow the law supports their incompetence, they can do it.

Look at it this way. It is a real stress as you are facing this situation, but you will get another job, and one day, you will be able to look back and see what a blessing in disguised it turned out to be because let's face it, an employer who has no qualms treating you like this is likely to be horrid in other ways, so really, you probably had a lucky escape.

Spendless

The employer sounds rubbish. I've had my fair share of crappy jobs to know tell-tale signs. It wouldn't surprise me if they hadn't known that the jobs were going to be shift work, but advertised them as set day-time hours so as to attract more people to apply so they had a good choice to pick from and then had every intention of switching the goalposts later, in the hope or belief that you would comply willingly.

They've got rid of you because you've made noises and questioned what they are doing. They don't want that, they want someone they can keep on changing things who will put up with it. Nothing you cn do about it I'm afraid.

I hope you find alternative employment soon, at least they're prepared to say you were working on a short term contract, so you can give that as a reason for leaving.