2 Years rule for employment rights. Very confusing

Mishomeister

I already had an independant legal advice from 3 different solicitors and all of them are contradicting each other.

Some websites state that the employment rights(taking company to tribunal for unfair dismissal) acquired after 2 years of service, whilst others actually state that the employer can be taken to tribunal after 1 year and 51 week as the emplyers have to give a statutory notice of 1 week.

My situation is that the emplyer want to sack me just short before 2 years of service.

As per work agreement they can either give me 2 months notice or pay in lieu for 2 months(which is what they are planning to do).

One solicitor has told me that if I am sucked when there is less than 1 week left before it turns to me being 2 years in service I could still take them to tribunal.

However the other solicitor has told me that if I am given 1 month pay in lieu this will be classed as automatically better term to myself as opposed to being given 1 week's notice and therefore even if I am sacked less than a week before I turn 2 years at work I would still be unable to take the employer to tribunal.

sangie595

Assuming dismissal is immediate (i.e without any notice) then the qualifying statutory notice is added to the term served. So yes, you must have served one year and 51 weeks in employment.

But of course that only means you qualify. It does not mean you have a case.

Mishomeister

sangie595 wrote: »

Assuming dismissal is immediate (i.e without any notice) then the qualifying statutory notice is added to the term served. So yes, you must have served one year and 51 weeks in employment.

But is a payment in lieu for a period longer than one week takes that one week statutory notice entitlement away from me?

sangie595

I'm sorry but amI failing to see exactly what you are saying. The situation is clear. What is the last day of your employment? Add one week. That's it. Payment in lieu has nothing to do with the calculation.

Hominu

Why do you want to stay with a company that is trying to get rid of you anyway?

What do you hope to get out of taking them to a tribunal ? More money than the 2 months they are going to give you anyway ?

If they offered me 2 months pay and didn't want me to work it I'd take it and use the time wisely to look for another job. It's clearly much better than 2 months notice and a lot less hassle than fighting for something I most likely won't win (and if I did I wouldn't want to work there again, or ask for a reference).

tacpot12

Good advice from Hominu.

sangie595

Hominu wrote: »

Why do you want to stay with a company that is trying to get rid of you anyway?

What do you hope to get out of taking them to a tribunal ? More money than the 2 months they are going to give you anyway ?

If they offered me 2 months pay and didn't want me to work it I'd take it and use the time wisely to look for another job. It's clearly much better than 2 months notice and a lot less hassle than fighting for something I most likely won't win (and if I did I wouldn't want to work there again, or ask for a reference).

Making a claim for unfair dismissal does not mean they have to stay with the employer. Why would you think it does, because reinstatement is very rare? You cannot assume that they aren't going to win a claim because you do not know what had happened - nobody does because they haven't said. And if the employer has acted unfairly in law, the fact that they have paid contractual notice (which they are required to do anyway) has no bearing on the matter of whether it was fair in law.

Mishomeister

sangie595 wrote: »

Payment in lieu has nothing to do with the calculation.

The way it was however explained to me by the last legal adviser I have spoken to, was that as my contractual terms were more favourable(2 months notice) than the statutory term(1 week), in my particular case 1 week statutory notice becomes non applicable. Hence is the reason for me creating this OP, as this is very specific emplyment law matter.

Guest101

A contractual right does not void a statutory one.

Mishomeister

Hominu wrote: »

Why do you want to stay with a company that is trying to get rid of you anyway?

I don't want to stay with such company, however I would much rather look for another job whilst still in employment, than stay unemployed, whilst still having to support my family, pay mortgage and the bills and dig in to my savings.

Hominu wrote: »

What do you hope to get out of taking them to a tribunal ? More money than the 2 months they are going to give you anyway ?

Their case is not strong and I have evidence to crash their charges, however they know if they sack me before 2 years I can do nothing to them. If this is not the case (If I manage to get to 2 years) there is a good chance they will back off and don't sack me at all.

Hominu wrote: »

If they offered me 2 months pay and didn't want me to work it I'd take it and use the time wisely to look for another job. It's clearly much better than 2 months notice and a lot less hassle than fighting for something I most likely won't win (and if I did I wouldn't want to work there again, or ask for a reference).

It is much harder to find another well paid job if you were dismissed, hence your reference will say that you were dismissed. I am very surprised by your comment about the reference. Are you self employed all your life, or have not tried to change jobs for a significant period of time?

Mishomeister

Guest101 wrote: »

A contractual right does not void a statutory one.

Thank you. Would you mind clarifying, which legislation you are referring to on this?