Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Unfair Dismissal How To Claim
13 Answers
I was dismissed from my job on 10/04/14, effective immediately. I had been there since 07/09/09. I had not received any verbal or written warnings previously about my tendency to "cutting it fine" when arriving for work. My start time was 5pm and would generally arrive at 4.55pm or thereafter, very rarely did I arrive past 5pm, my workmates generally arrived at 4.50pm. on the point of my dismissal: I arrived at work, running late, granted on 08/04/14 at 4.59pm. Before I could explain, aplologise etc. my boss, (at the time on the phone),approached me, excused himself to the mouthpeice, covered it, and proceeded to tell me to go home, then walked away and resumed his phone conversation, I left, On 10/04/14 I was called work before my 5pm start, only to be told I was being dismissed, as I had blatently ignored numerous demands to re-align my arrival to work to coincide with the others...During the 4yr 7mnth period that I,d worked there I didnt receive 1 written verbal warning to sign, although I was sent home on several occasions if I arrived past 4.55. My boss actually took me aside on occasions and asked my if I was deliberately trying to wind him up, to which I,d answer, of course not,but as far as I was concerned I was at work for the start of my shift 99% of the time......this answer was taken as insolence and my supervisor was instructed to moniter and deal accordingly with my unacceptable arrival times which usually resulted in an overly aggressive lecture on not towing the line to aggressive threats of dismissal if I happened to take offence at her manner. by the time they dismissed me, I was literally experiencing feelings of persecution, paranoia and realise now that I was effectively being bullied.....Its been 3mnths 2weeks since then and I want to make a claim, if not for bullying (which I would prefer) then for unfair dismissal, but ACAS have a 3mnth window for such cases that I knew nothing about til today.......Can any1 advise plz?
Answers
As I have pointed out here before, far more cases for unfair dismissal fail because the process used by the dismissal was unfair (when the underlying reason for the dismissal warranted it), than cases that fail because the underlying reason used by the employer was inappropriat e. It is impossible to tell from the scant evidence we have whether the dismissal...
21:40 Wed 23rd Jul 2014
I'm afraid that you should have thought of this before, now the three months have expired. You could seek legal advice if you wanted to. What sort of organisation were you working for? did they have policies about timekeeping etc., and a bullying policy? If so, you should have raised your concerns with management if you felt you were being picked on. If you were sent home several times for arriving late, this may well reflect in any reference you need from this employer - it sounds as if you didn't change your habits, which a wiser person might have done. There should have been written warnings, they are wrong in that respect. Have you actually spoken to ACAS or just looked at their website?
The three month limit set by ACAS is because the time limit [set by law] for applying to a Tribunal (which is the next step after ACAS) is 3 months from the termination of employment. The clock is paused during ACAS procedures but can't be restarted once the 3 month period is up:
http:// www.jus tice.go v.uk/tr ibunals /employ ment/cl aims/ma king-a- claim
http://
I can't understand this. If the start time was 5 pm then I don't see how the firm could validly insist that employees arrive at 4.50 pm. Provided you were there & ready to start work at 5 pm then that would satisfy the requirement.
However, from what you say there have been times (1% of your attendances?) when you have not been there at 5 pm, & you have been warned about this more than once. It may be that the way your dismissal was handled was not legally correct but I'm not sure you would have had much (if any) success at Tribunal.
However, from what you say there have been times (1% of your attendances?) when you have not been there at 5 pm, & you have been warned about this more than once. It may be that the way your dismissal was handled was not legally correct but I'm not sure you would have had much (if any) success at Tribunal.
Reading this again it looks like' instant dismissal' which is only for gross misconduct ( things like stealing from your employer)
You should not have been dismissed with out verbal and written warnings and the actual dismissal itself has to be in writing.
Still it is too late now for ACAS , but I think you would have won a tribunal.
You should not have been dismissed with out verbal and written warnings and the actual dismissal itself has to be in writing.
Still it is too late now for ACAS , but I think you would have won a tribunal.
As I have pointed out here before, far more cases for unfair dismissal fail because the process used by the dismissal was unfair (when the underlying reason for the dismissal warranted it), than cases that fail because the underlying reason used by the employer was inappropriate.
It is impossible to tell from the scant evidence we have whether the dismissal (for misconduct, presumably) was justifiable, but the process followed looks distinctly flawed to me. You should have been suspended on full at pending an internal investigation, and this investigation should have invited you back to hear your side of things.
The speed of this makes me suspect that you were dismissed for GROSS misconduct and that, if true, looks very dodgy. We're you paid notice? - you should have been, unless the dismissal was gross misconduct.
However none of the helpful info you have been given in the 24 hours matters now because missed the ACAS time limit.
The only comfort I can offer is this issue of gross or regular misconduct. What does your dismissal letter say? If the phrase does not mention gross misconduct and you have not been paid notice and all your holiday pay, it is a civil matter and I think you could claim in court for redress.
Won't help in any other ways though.
It is impossible to tell from the scant evidence we have whether the dismissal (for misconduct, presumably) was justifiable, but the process followed looks distinctly flawed to me. You should have been suspended on full at pending an internal investigation, and this investigation should have invited you back to hear your side of things.
The speed of this makes me suspect that you were dismissed for GROSS misconduct and that, if true, looks very dodgy. We're you paid notice? - you should have been, unless the dismissal was gross misconduct.
However none of the helpful info you have been given in the 24 hours matters now because missed the ACAS time limit.
The only comfort I can offer is this issue of gross or regular misconduct. What does your dismissal letter say? If the phrase does not mention gross misconduct and you have not been paid notice and all your holiday pay, it is a civil matter and I think you could claim in court for redress.
Won't help in any other ways though.
Spot on BM
Same thought occurred to me after Sharon Shoesmith took home £600k+ on the grounds that she hadnt been able to put her case.
Four-square here - MillyB wasnt allowed to put her case.
The rule is so old it is in Latin - Audi alteram partem.
On the facts - slam dunk - but I agree we dont know all the facts.
The reason is that parlaiment saw fit to take out 'reasonable' from "any reasonable employer" from the relevant clauses on procedure.
This means the only cases under the Employment Act 1994 are on whether the employer has used the procedure or not. - [Since if he HAS used the procedure, he doesnt have to be reasonable]
Same thought occurred to me after Sharon Shoesmith took home £600k+ on the grounds that she hadnt been able to put her case.
Four-square here - MillyB wasnt allowed to put her case.
The rule is so old it is in Latin - Audi alteram partem.
On the facts - slam dunk - but I agree we dont know all the facts.
The reason is that parlaiment saw fit to take out 'reasonable' from "any reasonable employer" from the relevant clauses on procedure.
This means the only cases under the Employment Act 1994 are on whether the employer has used the procedure or not. - [Since if he HAS used the procedure, he doesnt have to be reasonable]
hi and thank u all for responses......Now, in answer to some of your questions for the facts; I wasnt issued a contract of employment....I had no verbal warnings....I had no written warnings....No, I didnt receive a letter of dismissal. I was dismissed instantly, but in no way was I guilty of gross misconduct. As to the procedure for making complaints, can I explain that my workplace was a small business, a fish & chip shop and fully covered by CCTV, which each morning the boss and the supervisor would play through the previous days evening shift (neither of them ever worked evenings) and they would proceed to fault find,( e.g. failing to stock the shelves), that would end in a truely unwarranted dressing down; shouting, swearing, finger pointed in your face....On 1 occasion I became defensive and verbally retaliated. On my arrival to work the next day I was pulled up by the boss, and told off for back chatting the supervisor.Then, despite informing him that I was just reacting defensively to the uncalled for way I was being spoken to, he told me to apologise to her...Thats how my own and my workmates grievances were dealt with in the style of them against us.