Redundancy! Weird Day!

sangie595

antrobus wrote: »

Not unfair dismissal. OP has less than two years service. Wrongful dismissal would be the allegation.

Yes, it would be unfair dismissal. No, it would not be wrongful dismissal. OP doesn't need two years service for sex discrimination and dismissal on the grounds of pregnancy. Wrongful dismissal is something else entirely, and relates to breach of contractual terms - so dismissal without notice pay, for example. That is not the claim here. The OP alleges, and has evidence of, dismissal because they told the employer they were pregnant, and that can only happen to women. Discrimination claims.

Masomnia

scaredofdebt wrote: »

In the end she looked at going down the constructive dismissal route and they then offered her a severance package which was worth almost as much as if she had won an industrial tribunal, so she accepted it.

Try to document as much as you can and consider legal advice.

Mmm I think bringing it up during the consultation and hoping for some kind of mutual agreement is the right approach.

At the end of the day if OP doesn't do that and leaves it until after they unfairly dismiss her and then at tribunal claims that she has this evidence I think it will stand against her that she did not bring it up sooner, and during the process. It puts her in a difficult position really, because at this point the employer hasn't done anything except say that they are considering outsourcing their payroll/bookkeeping.

An accountant certainly shouldn't lie to a court. It may of course be true that they have had discussions about outsourcing their payroll before; indeed I'd be surprised if they hadn't.

Definitely a difficult one, but until they actually dismiss you your options are limited imho.

getmore4less

I think even if there have been negotiations the accountants will drop the idea of taking on this work and try to get distance from the new problem when they find out.

Just tell the accountant you look forward to being TUPE to them and any negotiations will most likely stop.

wonder if the law stretches far enough to still capture the accountants if they did pull out, as it could also be fairly obvious it was because they would be taking on a pregnant employee.

The alternative(to pulling out) for the accountants is to include the costs in the quote and hope the company pulls the plug on the idea.

nomoreboomandbust

OP- I feel for you in this situation. The curious thing i find about all this is that the flow is usually the other way round, ie the accountant's fee is too much due to their charge out rates being higher than an employees' hourly rate + associated costs such as ERs ni .

An accountant will step in when there is a maternity period to cover or in my case when the bookkeeper is off sick for a lengthy term after recovering from an injury but that should not mean that the accountant takes over on a permanent basis.