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

getmore4less

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 Whether they came back under a new name or not I've no idea but regardless they'll have been replaced by numerous other experts that other members view as being unable to speak any wrong.

Most that post here don't make claims to their backgrounds, as with all MSE boards you are looking at opinions.

What often happens is you get people making claims they are xyz and then use that as justification for their opinion and when challenged with a different one throw their toys out of the pram rather than back up their opinion with the relevant law(legislation or  case) they are basing their opinion on.

if you don't believe someone is right you can voice a different opinion.

everyone(there are a few exceptions) on MSE is random stranger  no matter what claims they make  caveat emptor.

Undervalued

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 Whether they came back under a new name or not I've no idea but regardless they'll have been replaced by numerous other experts that other members view as being unable to speak any wrong.

So why did you start this thread?

Given that you "don't even pretend to know the ins and outs of employment law" (your words) how are you able to assess the expertise (or otherwise) of anybody who takes the trouble to respond?

If you want professional and accountable legal advice from someone who's qualifications can be verified, see a solicitor!

Undervalued

avawat20 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? 

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.

A High Court Judge once famously said that as far as he was concerned there are only two professions. One was the law and everybody knows what the the other one is!

JustAnotherSaver

Undervalued said:

So why did you start this thread?

Is that a serious question?

On the chance that it actually is one then i'll play along .... to get an answer to the question I asked is my answer to your question. I would've thought that much would've been obvious, no? Why does anyone ask a question?

I've seen it thrown around here numerous times. The big 24. I remember a thread where someone was facing the sack. People just asked how long they'd served. The answer was something like 12-18 months IIRC. The MSE follow up response was you've not worked 24 months so they can sack you because it's Tuesday kind of thing. So long as they don't say you're fat, you're pregnant, you're white/black/Asian etc then they can sack you for pretty much anything.

So because i've seen this consistently in this forum, I was wondering about an actual backup to this fact that is put across on this forum. There must be documentation to say that you can be got rid of if south of 24 months. I couldn't find it so I was asking here.

lincroft1710

JustAnotherSaver said:

Undervalued said:

So why did you start this thread?

So because i've seen this consistently in this forum, I was wondering about an actual backup to this fact that is put across on this forum. There must be documentation to say that you can be got rid of if south of 24 months. I couldn't find it so I was asking here.

The following doesn't actually say that an employee can be dismissed without reason with less than 2 years service, but that they cannot claim unfair dismissal unless for an "automatically unfair" reason.

https://www.gov.uk/dismiss-staff/eligibility-to-claim-unfair-dismissal

Like many pieces of legislation, the interpretation can be the implication rather than what is actually stated

Undervalued

In reply to JustAnotherSaver asking......

Is that a serious question?

Yes, it was a serious question as the second paragraph in you previous post gave the clear impression you were unlikely to believe the answers given by the "supposed experts" ...."that other members view as being unable to speak any wrong"!

Anyway......

I've seen it thrown around here numerous times. The big 24. I remember a thread where someone was facing the sack. People just asked how long they'd served. The answer was something like 12-18 months IIRC. The MSE follow up response was you've not worked 24 months so they can sack you because it's Tuesday kind of thing. So long as they don't say you're fat, you're pregnant, you're white/black/Asian etc then they can sack you for pretty much anything.

Broadly the answer is yes. As has been pointed out, under two years employment there is no right to claim unfair dismissal unless you can show that the dismissal was due to a protected characteristic. Your mention some of the obvious ones and there are few others, some a bit obscure. You can however claim wrongful dismissal (which is basically breach of contract) regardless of length of service.  So if, for example, the employer has a formal disciplinary policy and they failed to follow it there may be a valid claim. Realistically all it would yield is a few days (maybe a couple of weeks) pay to compensate for however long it would have taken to "do it properly".

In the past there were laid down statutory procedures which an employer needed to follow to the letter. Failure to do so could be taken to a tribunal, regardless of length of service, and would lead to automatic awards (a week's pay for this, two weeks pay for that etc). The vast majority of these have been abolished and replaced with guidelines. Failure to follow these is not, in itself, actionable.

So because i've seen this consistently in this forum, I was wondering about an actual backup to this fact that is put across on this forum. There must be documentation to say that you can be got rid of if south of 24 months. I couldn't find it so I was asking here.

The general principle of English law is that everything is allowed unless there is a law prohibiting it. Some other countries are almost the opposite where you can't do anything unless it is specifically allowed. That is a wild simplification but you get the gist? So you won't find a law spelling out that.

ACAS's guidelines do, in places, raise some false hopes and get quoted on here quite often. As I sometimes point out to those that delight in quoting them, "that is fine but please tell me what realistic, cost effective remedy exists if an employer fails to do XXXX"? If there isn't one the "right" is pretty meaningless. 

General_Grant

Undervalued - I've thanked you for that post but wanted to expand on your statement that "So if, for example, the employer has a formal disciplinary policy and they failed to follow it there may be a valid claim. "   It is not only that the disciplinary policy/procedure document is formal but also that it is contractual (and I know you were including it in the paragraph about wrongful dismissal).  Many employers will have such a policy but explicitly exclude it from the employment contract.

Undervalued

General_Grant said:

Undervalued - I've thanked you for that post but wanted to expand on your statement that "So if, for example, the employer has a formal disciplinary policy and they failed to follow it there may be a valid claim. "   It is not only that the disciplinary policy/procedure document is formal but also that it is contractual (and I know you were including it in the paragraph about wrongful dismissal).  Many employers will have such a policy but explicitly exclude it from the employment contract.

Yes, I appreciate that and it was probably worth clarifying as you have done.