Sacking / releasing / letting go ... getting rid of someone who hasn't served 24 months..??

Gavin83

https://www.google.com/search?q=can+you+be+sacked+within+2+years&oq=can+you+be+sacked+within&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0j0i22i30l2j0i22i30i395l6.5105j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Literally a 10 second google shows links to solicitor sites and Citizens Advice backing up what's been said on this forum. Ultimately you can't claim unfair dismissal for the first 2 years unless you've been sacked for a certain defined reason. Generally this is related to protected characteristics but can also include things like whistleblowing and becoming a union rep. You can claim wrongful dismissal but this is only really for the breach of contract so as long as you're paying notice/holiday you'll be fine.

If you want specific legal texts backing this up I'd suggest you speak to a solicitor/some sort of outsourced HR company. Honestly I'd suggest speaking to a solicitor regardless.

Marcon

JustAnotherSaver said:

I'm a little confused. 

I've read on here, more than once, that employers can get rid of you for almost anything within 24 months. People will detail scenarios and they'll get a short have you served 24 months? No? Unlucky type reply.

Aside from my partner asking about it as they've had it put to them from their employer, I also would like to know out of curiosity. 

And now it's a bit like backtracking. That blanket statement of no 24 months = unlucky you seems to be replaced with well we're not really sure. Everything depends. 

If it's as black and white as I've been reading on MSE for quite some time then where's the evidence to show this? I thought there would be some but now I'm wondering why there isn't.

Unless it isn't as black and white as first claimed on MSE? 

Employment law normally has plenty of shades of grey! For a kick off, people often fail to add statutory (not contractual) notice period to the employee's length of service, and can stumble over the 2-year mark as a result.

There are various scenarios in which a dismissal without any minimum length of service could still be unfair - unlawful discrimination being the most common.

Plenty of info on the CAB and ACAS websites, but the problem is that anything which is presented in easy to read, simplified snippets is open to being misconstrued. Best idea is to get some proper advice from someone qualified to give that advice, and who has been provided with full details of the scenario in question.

General_Grant

Marcon said:

JustAnotherSaver said:

I'm a little confused. 

I've read on here, more than once, that employers can get rid of you for almost anything within 24 months. People will detail scenarios and they'll get a short have you served 24 months? No? Unlucky type reply.

Aside from my partner asking about it as they've had it put to them from their employer, I also would like to know out of curiosity. 

And now it's a bit like backtracking. That blanket statement of no 24 months = unlucky you seems to be replaced with well we're not really sure. Everything depends. 

If it's as black and white as I've been reading on MSE for quite some time then where's the evidence to show this? I thought there would be some but now I'm wondering why there isn't.

Unless it isn't as black and white as first claimed on MSE? 

Employment law normally has plenty of shades of grey! For a kick off, people often fail to add statutory (not contractual) notice period to the employee's length of service, and can stumble over the 2-year mark as a result.

There are various scenarios in which a dismissal without any minimum length of service could still be unfair - unlawful discrimination being the most common.

Plenty of info on the CAB and ACAS websites, but the problem is that anything which is presented in easy to read, simplified snippets is open to being misconstrued. Best idea is to get some proper advice from someone qualified to give that advice, and who has been provided with full details of the scenario in question.

To clarify - are you saying that if someone has worked for an employer for 1 year 11 months and 3 week (so statutory notice is 1 week) and gives notice at that point, the notice period means they can insist on receiving the reason for the dismissal in writing even though the dismissal notice was before the two year anniversary?
And that PILON does not change this?

Savvy_Sue

They've given notice. Reason for dismissal: you quit!

But if the notice period from employer to employee was more than 1 week, yes, they'd slide over the 2 year period.

Undervalued

Savvy_Sue said:

They've given notice. Reason for dismissal: you quit!

But if the notice period from employer to employee was more than 1 week, yes, they'd slide over the 2 year period.

Only statutory notice (1 week) counts towards the magic two years. If the contractual notice is longer it must still be paid but providing the OP employee doesn't work beyond the two year point (so gets PILON) they do not qualify to claim unfair dismissal (except in cases of unlawful discrimination).

That said, unless the contract provides a right to pay PILON if the employer so chooses (most do), technically they may be in breach of contract by not allowing the employee to physically work their notice. This has been used in the past to "qualify".

avawat20

JustAnotherSaver said:

I'm a little confused. 

I've read on here, more than once, that employers can get rid of you for almost anything within 24 months. People will detail scenarios and they'll get a short have you served 24 months? No? Unlucky type reply.

Aside from my partner asking about it as they've had it put to them from their employer, I also would like to know out of curiosity. 

And now it's a bit like backtracking. That blanket statement of no 24 months = unlucky you seems to be replaced with well we're not really sure. Everything depends. 

If it's as black and white as I've been reading on MSE for quite some time then where's the evidence to show this? I thought there would be some but now I'm wondering why there isn't.

Unless it isn't as black and white as first claimed on MSE? 

Nothing is that black and white in employment law! Don't use MSE forum as you're only source. I'm a HR professional and I've seen some shocking advice on here.

avawat20

Lomast said:

avawat20 said:

You are HR's worst nightmare manager. There is such a thing as wrongful dismissal too where there is no minimum length of service - the 2 years is in regards to unfair dismissal. Seek HR/legal advice and follow a fair process - note the word FAIR. Fair on the employee and you also have your reputation as an organisation and employer to consider... there can be a number of reasons for underperformance so give them a fair chance to explain and fair chance to improve before you 'get rid' *rolls eyes*

Wrongful dismissal would only apply if any parts of the contract were breached by the employer by dismissing the employee such as not giving correct notice or pilon, things like that.

I agree with getting proper advice but there is nothing in law that says they must be given a chance to improve, if they are not doing their job to an acceptable standard they should not expect to keep the job

Implied terms can also come under wrongful dismissal. Unfortunately for everyone here, including me and the OP - the only person that can answer that question is the courts if it ever gets that far. The most employers can do to NOT get that far or at least have legs to stand on if they do, is to treat the employee fairly and apply their policies and procedures - not just 'get rid'. The only time I've known of that happening is where I've worked is where it came to light an employee had not declared a criminal matter (worked for a policing organisation) and the conversation was basically "if you don't resign, you're going to most likely be fired" and they resigned...

You can have a TACTFUL conversation as part of this to see if they think the job is for them and they may well resign after realising but far better to play it safer that way then risk this person having an employment lawyer family member/friend/friend of a friend whatever and taking you to court.

Mickey666

avawat20 said:

The most employers can do to NOT get that far or at least have legs to stand on if they do, is to treat the employee fairly and apply their policies and procedures - not just 'get rid'. The only time I've known of that happening is where I've worked is where it came to light an employee had not declared a criminal matter (worked for a policing organisation) and the conversation was basically "if you don't resign, you're going to most likely be fired" and they resigned...

That reminds me of an incident at a company I worked for ages ago.  A salesman had got rather carried away with entertaining a potential customer and after one particular night out got out of hand he ended up with an £1800 bill on his company credit card.  Unabashed, he included it in his monthly expenses claim.  Predicably, the sales director blew his top and gave him an ultimatum - he could withdraw the expense claim and no more would be said, or he could submit it, it would be paid, but he'd be fired!  

Knowing the sales director, I don't think he was bluffing!   Anyway, the salesman withdrew the expense claim and it never happened again  

JustAnotherSaver

avawat20 said:

Nothing is that black and white in employment law! Don't use MSE forum as you're only source. I'm a HR professional and I've seen some shocking advice on here.

As have I and i don't even pretend to know the ins and outs of employment law.

Does the shocking advice you've seen also include advice given by the supposed MSE employment law experts? I remember one from a good few years ago who I think left. Whether they came back under a new name or not I've no idea but regardless they'll have been replaced by numerous other experts that other members view as being unable to speak any wrong.

avawat20

JustAnotherSaver said:

avawat20 said:

Nothing is that black and white in employment law! Don't use MSE forum as you're only source. I'm a HR professional and I've seen some shocking advice on here.

As have I and i don't even pretend to know the ins and outs of employment law.

Does the shocking advice you've seen also include advice given by the supposed MSE employment law experts? I remember one from a good few years ago who I think left. Whether they came back under a new name or not I've no idea but regardless they'll have been replaced by numerous other experts that other members view as being unable to speak any wrong.

Probably! But I definitely use our in house legal team regularly - sometimes what we think of as the logical answer is a big legal no no!