ChatterBank1 min ago
Sacked- police came to work place
Few years ago a friend of mine got sacked from his company simply because police came to his work place to arrest him for questioning. (he was sacked immediately - within 24 hrs)
Surely this is illegal- or do different rules apply for private companies?
Surely this is illegal- or do different rules apply for private companies?
Answers
1 to 5 of 5
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by tali1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
He was sacked simply because the police asked him for answers ? Sounds totally extreme to me... has he contacted his union? or even his MP ? I'd be kicking up a right royal fuss if this happened to me... He needs to protest to everybody he knows plus getting his mates to protest to everyone they know...
I doubt protesting to anyone is going to get him anywhere now since the question says it was "a few years ago"!
Is it illegal? If he'd worked there more than a year then most likely (or it may have been two years back then, it's only recently that legislation reduced the time frame for full employment rights).
If he'd worked there less time than that they can pretty much do what they like. He can be dismissed without reason.
Is it illegal? If he'd worked there more than a year then most likely (or it may have been two years back then, it's only recently that legislation reduced the time frame for full employment rights).
If he'd worked there less time than that they can pretty much do what they like. He can be dismissed without reason.
(2-part post):
The law doesn't actually prevent any employer from sacking any employee for any reason whatsoever (or even the complete absence of a reason). It simply gives the employee the right to seek redress if he believes that the rules on unfair dismissal have been contravened. (Even if an employee can show that he has been unfairly dismissed he has no right to get his job back. The employer could opt to pay compensation instead). So many employers are prepared to take the risk of unfairly dismissing an employee because they know that the employee won't want to take the issue to an employment tribunal. (The proceedings of such tribunals take place in public and the 'juicier' ones are reported in the press).
When operating strictly within the rules, an employee (with more than 12 month's service) can't normally be sacked for something which occurs outside of work. However, there's an exception when the employee's actions lead to a 'loss of trust' in their ability to perform their job properly. For example, Ian Huntley was sacked from his school caretaking job well before he was ever convicted of the Soham murders. That was because Cambridgeshire County Council took the view that it would be impossible for him to continue in the role (because 'mud sticks') even if he was subsequently to be proved completely innocent.
The law doesn't actually prevent any employer from sacking any employee for any reason whatsoever (or even the complete absence of a reason). It simply gives the employee the right to seek redress if he believes that the rules on unfair dismissal have been contravened. (Even if an employee can show that he has been unfairly dismissed he has no right to get his job back. The employer could opt to pay compensation instead). So many employers are prepared to take the risk of unfairly dismissing an employee because they know that the employee won't want to take the issue to an employment tribunal. (The proceedings of such tribunals take place in public and the 'juicier' ones are reported in the press).
When operating strictly within the rules, an employee (with more than 12 month's service) can't normally be sacked for something which occurs outside of work. However, there's an exception when the employee's actions lead to a 'loss of trust' in their ability to perform their job properly. For example, Ian Huntley was sacked from his school caretaking job well before he was ever convicted of the Soham murders. That was because Cambridgeshire County Council took the view that it would be impossible for him to continue in the role (because 'mud sticks') even if he was subsequently to be proved completely innocent.
Similarly, Tesco dispensed with the services of the guy who was originally arrested for the Ipswich murders (but was subsequently shown to be innocent). They did so because his admissions of using the services of prostitutes, and his continued presence in one of their stores, was deemed to be likely to deter some customers from using that store.
Other employees have been dismissed because 'rumours' adversely affect their working relationship within the organisation, or with customers or clients. (If the rumours were totally without any foundation, the employee might be able to take action for unfair dismissal, but at the risk of those rumours being aired in public. If the rumours started because of the employee's own unwise actions, those actions might be regarded as leading to a 'loss of trust', making the dismissal lawful).
Chris
Other employees have been dismissed because 'rumours' adversely affect their working relationship within the organisation, or with customers or clients. (If the rumours were totally without any foundation, the employee might be able to take action for unfair dismissal, but at the risk of those rumours being aired in public. If the rumours started because of the employee's own unwise actions, those actions might be regarded as leading to a 'loss of trust', making the dismissal lawful).
Chris
1 to 5 of 5
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.