Fair/unfair dismissal .

[modeller]

I know of three people who recently lost their jobs in IT because the companies were able to take on people who were willing to work for nothing .
Have those who lost their jobs any redress ?

I can understand how it happened .
The people taken on gained experience and had another box on their CVs which they could tick and the companies saved themselves a lot of money.

Last week Tesco were accused of doing this for shelf stackers on the minimum wage but it also happens in higher paid jobs.

This is another example of what a farce the employment/unemployment figures are.

[boxtops]

I suppose that if the people who are asked to leave are on fixed term contracts (as many are these days) the company has no obligation to them after their contracts end. Voluntary work is a great way of getting people back into work mode...

[ojread2]

There could be
Depends on how they 'lost' their job
You can't make someone redundant just because there is someone who will do it for nothing - the job isn't there any more if the employee is made redundant so there may be redress there

[modeller]

In two of the cases it isn't a case of redundancy the job is still there but it is now being done for nothing . In the third case his job is being done by two graduates, neither of whom have his level of expertise but they cope by sharing their knowledge and the job . The bottom line being it's free labour.

[buildersmate]

Then it isn't redundancy, so dismissal of the employees could be unfair.
But only if:
these people are employees and not self-employed contractors - as many in the IT industry are.
they have been employed for at least 12 months continuously.

[factor-fiction]

I'm not sure what you meant by 'lost their job', modeller.

Whilst I agree that the unemployment/employment figures are not very meaningful, I'm not sure this example makes the figures a farce. If someone has lost their job (eg a temp contract wasn't renewed) and been replaced by someone on a placement then there is no change to the figures.

[modeller]

We could get bogged down on the exact meaning of a word but the bottom line is . These people had a job and now they don't. It doesn't matter what their terms of employment were .They have now still lost their jobs .

Another point is ; who is termed unemployed nowadays ?
Is there any difference in the unemployment figures for those receiving unemployment benefit and those receiving job seekers allowance. ? There is also those who are supposedly receiving some sort of training . They don't count as unemployed and are working for nothing but receive some sort of benefit . I believe the Tesco case was in this catagory.
With all these different schemes that's why I said the unemployment figures are a farce.

In the three cases I mentioned I was told the replacements are working for nothing but may receive one of these allowances

boxtops # Voluntary work is a great way of getting people back into work mode... #
I agree with you that getting people to work for nothing May get some people into the work mode although I doubt if that would apply to the
'workshy'.

On the news yesterday it is claimed some firms are running on freebie labour, with just a few permanent staff and most of those are on short term contracts.

[buildersmate]

You asked a specific question - have those who lost their jobs any redress? - and I gave you the answer. Yes, it very much depends on whether they have a service contract (one that means they deliver a service in exchange for money - i.e. self-employed) or whether they have a contract of service (an employment contract) as to whether they can get redress.

However you actually now seem to be more interested in whether the Government of the day are fiddling the unemployment figures. Every time the Government of the day changes the basis of the calculation they prevent us mere mortals from drawing direct comparisons between now and x months or years ago - so, sure, the figures are being fiddled with. That's the perogative of Government.

[boxtops]

//These people had a job and now they don't. It doesn't matter what their terms of employment were //

of course it does. Some of my colleagues are on fixed term contracts, anyone could be employed in that job after the end of their contracts. The rest of us are on permanent contracts - unless our jobs are made redundant, there would have to be a very sound reason for dismissal. The terms of employment are highly significant in this question.

[tonywiltshire]

You ask if there is any redress for those who have been dismissed and BM gives you two important points to provide a remedy, which will be to seek compensation or reinstatement from their employer for unfair dismissal at an employment tribunal (ET), very few people seek reinstatement, most require compensation. In my experience the parties settle more than 50% of claims before they attend an ET but you do need to have the correct qualifications to make a claim to an ET.
Are they employees? You can hardly take action against an employer if you are not one of their employees.
Have they been employed for at least one year? If they are employees but do not have one years service they are unable to seek a remedy at an ET, except in specific circumstances.
These are critical questions to answer your original question. Is there any redress for those who have lost their jobs?

No doubt the published figurers do not accurately portray the total unemployed persons, I have little doubt that governments of any persuasion like to present the figures in the best possible light.

[modeller]

boxtops Q

[factor-fiction]

Did you press submit before you'd finished typing there, modeller?

[modeller]

boxtops Why on earth are we arguing about the word 'lost ' .
If you were under contract and it was not renewed. What words would you use ?

" I left by mutual agreement ". or some other meaningless term. ?
Whatever term you choose to use you have still lost the job. T

[factor-fiction]

Yes, some has 'lost' their job. But that doesn't necessarily mean they have been unfairly dismissed or have any redress- which is what you asked. I assume they were contractors.

[rowanwitch]

You don't lose a job at the end of a fixed term contract as you signed up knowing you would only have it for the period of the contract. It is perfectly reasonable for a company to readvertise the post or cover it in any way they choose at that point. So that really is the key fixed term contract not a job loss as you didn't have an expectation of continuing in post at commencement

[modeller]

cont. The job has not changed it is still there being done by a freebie.

I'm not disputing the fact that it is all legal and these people probably have no redress. That's why I asked the question to see if they might have some case.

I'm sorry it degenerated into pedantry especially as the government has announced a new scheme today which will have some undesrable consequences.

[buildersmate]

Presumably you are referring to the scheme for NEETs?

I think it is worthy scheme - somewhat along the lines of New Deal 18-24 which was the Labour Government's version of the same thing.

[lcg]

it is not pedantic to ask what contracts the people were on before they lost their jobs, or the length of time they worked there, or how they were dismissed. both issues need to be clarified before anyone can advise if they have been unfairly treated. either give the information if you want an answer, or don't. and untwist yer knickers while you're at it. people were only trying to help and you are rude in your responses. sheesh.