Direct Report Injured at work then Sacked.

Options
1…45679

Comments

  • BrassicWoman
    BrassicWoman Posts: 3,202 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Mortgage-free Glee!
    Options
    hello dondada!
    2021 GC £1365.71/ £2400
  • Smellyonion
    Smellyonion Posts: 258 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary
    Options
    sangie595 wrote: »
    Ah. Excellent. And now I know who you are! I have told you this before - you may find it entertaining to pretend to be a legal expert and quote your Google searches like an authority. Playing with people's lives and telling them things that are entirely unrealistic or untrue is not amusing. It is damaging. Misleading people into believing they have rights or entitlements that do not exist isn't funny. You aren't the one taking the risks or paying the bills. You've caused enough damage. It seems that didn't satisfy you.


    What on earth are you on? Who have I misled? What risks or bills?


    Ridiculous.
    T
  • dickydonkin
    dickydonkin Posts: 3,055 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post Combo Breaker
    Options
    Cotta wrote: »
    under what circumstances would my boss be exempt from a claim? He seems to think that now the girl is sacked and due to the fall being two months ago he is safe.

    None.

    Furthermore, the 'employer' is not 'safe' until three years after the incident.
  • dickydonkin
    dickydonkin Posts: 3,055 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post Combo Breaker
    edited 7 August 2018 at 10:37PM
    Options
    Smellyonion wrote: »
    I think that you are lacking common sense.


    1) Its contradictory to say that "you don't know that", because you also 'don't know that', beaten by your own argument. Based on the evidence in this thread and the evidence from the direct reports own manager, my assumptions are more likely to be correct than yours so try again and don't defeat yourself using your own arguments.


    2) If it is not in black and white, and it is vague then it is debatable. An employment tribunal would decide if it is within the remit of the role. Saying that all contracts sate "other such duties" means you must do anything is incorrect and shows your lack of understanding.


    3) Again, based on the evidence, my evaluation is more likely. Think.... If a low earning admin assistant has lawyers likely from a no win no fee company, fighting this case. These qualified lawyers have made the judgement that she has a case and a good chance of succeeding, which they wouldn't have proceeded with if the chance of a goof outcome was low. Try once more.


    Your comparison on hitting yourself on the head with hammer is totally irrelevant. What is your point?


    4) Wrong, dismissing someone because of fear of H&S failing coming to fruition has no validation period which she could quite easily claim if she wins the personal injury. Try again, do some reading stop and think and respond again.

    Point 4 is [STRIKE]mostly [/STRIKE] nonsense!
  • Smellyonion
    Smellyonion Posts: 258 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary
    edited 8 August 2018 at 4:21AM
    Options
    Readers of this forum have to be very careful. It is made up of wannabe lawyers that offer dangerous advice and seem to neglect the fact that this is place where people's opinions and interpretations vary and have no understanding of the subjective element to law. Two of the same cases presented to different judges could yield differing outcomes.

    If someone had suffered a dismisal due to a possible infringement of Act 1996 s.100(1) having read sangie595 posts they would have been given the interpretation that such a right does not exist. This is totally wrong and it was absolutely correct to challenge such users. The two year validation period is not needed in certain circumstances and this is not what long term users would have you believe. I absolutely welcome debat as to whether it is possible or justifiable in court but claiming it doesn't exist is wrong.

    When proven incorrect, this user then goes into paranoia mode, trying to discredit users to justify their own very poor advice that could put off individuals from seeking justice had there been no challenge. In the grand scheme of things, you can understand the reason why, since they spend their time prowling the employment forum for their own gratification, there is a lot to lose.

    I'll remind users again of the two incorrect and misleading statements:
    "She has less than two years service, so no, she can't claim unfair dismissal."
    "..and "health and safety" isn't one of the reasons for being able to bring a claim before two years anyway!"

    To all readers of this thread, do not consider gospel anything that you read on public forums. Take qualified advice, do your own research and make a judgement call. Shouting the loudest or having lots of posts on a forum does not make one correct or a legal expert.
  • nicechap
    nicechap Posts: 2,852 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Options
    Boo hoo, they're all being mean to me because I was wrong.
    Originally Posted by shortcrust
    "Contact the Ministry of Fairness....If sufficient evidence of unfairness is discovered you’ll get an apology, a permanent contract with backdated benefits, a ‘Let’s Make it Fair!’ tshirt and mug, and those guilty of unfairness will be sent on a Fairness Awareness course."
  • Smellyonion
    Smellyonion Posts: 258 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary
    Options
    nicechap wrote: »
    Boo hoo, they're all being mean to me because I was wrong.
    Very thoughtful post, I commend you. Carry on embarassing yourself.
  • mariefab
    mariefab Posts: 320 Forumite
    Options
    Smellyonion you are not alone.

    A great number of other people 'know' that it's unfair to dismiss someone for health and safety.
    However, what a lot of them don't realise is that this is only true if the health and safety claim fits within a handful of sets of criteria.(as Sangie said, giving examples)

    Automatically unfair dismissal health and safety claims can only be raised by:
    1. A health and safety rep, appointed by the employer or by the workforce, who was sacked for simply carrying out his job.
    2. An employee who was sacked for raising a currently harmful, or potentially harmful, health and safety matter when no health and safety rep was available.
    3. An employee who was sacked for leaving (or saying they would leave) the workplace when they believed that they were in serious, imminent danger that they couldn't avert themself or refused to return until the danger was averted.
    4. An employee who was sacked for taking reasonable steps to protect himself and/or others from serious imminent danger.
  • sangie595
    sangie595 Posts: 6,092 Forumite
    Options
    BrassicWoman wrote: »
    hello dondada!
    Hello. Got it in one!

    For those who don't understand the reference, on another site this person claims to be a volunteer with the Ministry of Justice at Tribunal Offices supporting litigants in person. And to have attended a whole ten tribunals in the past, I believe.

    Following this claim, because I had never heard of such a thing, I had our office contact the Ministry of Justice. It is untrue. Neither the Ministry of Justice nor any Tribunal Office employs anyone, in paid or unpaid capacity, to support any litigants. Of course, this was plainly apparent. These are courts of law and whilst "justice is blind" may not be an entire truism, the court does not retain people to support or assist either side, because that would be iniquitous.

    What people choose to believe is up to them, but I would strongly advise anyone listening to the advice from Smellyonion to (a) take it with a ton of salt, because they won't be picking up the pieces if you make things worse, and (b) feel free to check with the Ministry of Justice themselves whether they are really able to volunteer with them to support litigants.
  • mariefab
    mariefab Posts: 320 Forumite
    Options
    Oh dear.
    Well it was a debate worth having anyway because it may assist others.
    A lot of people believe that any reference to health and safety in a case is a home run.
    If I had a penny for every time someone exclaimed, "Ah! Health and Safety!" and sat back beaming I'd....actually I'd have about 11p....never mind.
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.1K Life & Family
  • 247.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards