Employment law experts please - i been dismissed for no 'apparent' reason?

wez130 · 25 Jan 2012 at 20:00

I went back to work this morning after having a short break from work (5 days). When i finished my last shift on Thursday, everything was fine and dandy - all happy etc. This morning, i was called to a meeting with one of the external managers, and my business manager and told that they were letting me go due to low sales in the restaurant, takings for the last 12 weeks had been written down etc, and after xmas, takings have shot right down - which in the catering industry is the norm. I was also told that it was also partly because of a failed audit from when i was on holiday last year in July / August some time - completely out of my hands.

I have worked there 2 weeks short of a year, started 12th Feb 2011, and i was always being praised for my work, even over the busy xmas period etc. So to say this has come as a shock is an understatement, i loved my job and carried it out with pride, was always 20 minutes early for work etc.

The company was taken over in October last year by a bigger company, and the manager replaced with the current one, who i had a good relationship with, however, the manager has worked there previously and the chef at the time she worked there is one of her best friends, and i've a funny feeling that i've been dismissed so that this chef can take my job as head chef, i will know whether this is true or not in the next few days anyway.

Now, the fact i've been finished today and will be paid until the end of the month as my notice (working week starts sunday, monday tuesday are my contracted days off). This doesn't take me to a years continuous employment. However, on looking on http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index.../basic_rights_at_work.htm#notice_of_dismissal, it seems that they have not carried out my dismissal correctly, and that i should have a right to appeal before i am finally dismissed, as it was not because of gross misconduct. I come to this conclusion from this...

In most circumstances, if your employer wants to dismiss you, they should follow a proper dismissal and disciplinary procedure. Before dismissing you, your employer should:

A.send you a written statement, telling you why they want to dismiss you
B.hold a meeting with you to discuss the matter
C.hold an appeal meeting with you, if you want to appeal against your dismissal.

Firstly, i wasn't given a written statement, notifying me of their plans, i was not told what my meeting was about, and i wasn't given a chance of an appeal.

So, experts of OcUK, where do i stand?

Thx, Wez

manic111 · 25 Jan 2012 at 20:04

It sounds like redundancy to me, if they're saying that they're cutting staff due to reduced takings? The above guidance is for a disciplinary issue.

How was it worded to you? Redundancy? Or dismissal?

wez130 · 25 Jan 2012 at 20:06

dismissal, they have to replace me as i was head chef. It's looking more likely that i am right about the hunch about the managers friend taking it, i've just spoken to my 2nd chef who knows my (ex) managers partner, who has apparently said that he will be taking my job!

tom_e · 25 Jan 2012 at 20:07

Sounds like they've timed it nicely for themselves just under a year to avoid you having too many rights.

manic111 · 25 Jan 2012 at 20:09

Hmm, in that case it does sound like they've gone about it in the wrong way. From my understanding, unless it's gross misconduct, you have to have verbal and written warning before dismissal, with a suitable period in between for you to improve on issues raised. Even if it's gross misconduct, you have the right to appeal.

I'm not an expert, but I'd certainly recommend speaking to the CAB first thing tomorrow.

Slam62 · 25 Jan 2012 at 20:10

I have a huge amount of sympathy with you, however I don't think you can do much about it if it's less than a year, sorry.

You could try the CAB though, I could be wrong.

manic111 · 25 Jan 2012 at 20:13

Slam62 said:
I have a huge amount of sympathy with you, however I don't think you can do much about it if it's less than a year, sorry.

You could try the CAB though, I could be wrong.

I don't think that's correct - had it been redundancy it would be different, as statutory pay would only be a week, but if the OP is correct in saying that this is not redundancy but dismissal, then I believe his employer is in the wrong.

big_white_dog84 · 25 Jan 2012 at 20:16

Sounds like they are possibly making a balls of it, giving you a bit of hope. However don't let them know that you know they're making a balls of it, or they'll fix it before you can do anything. It sounds like redundancy to me which IIRC means they are not allowed to fill your post within x years (ie it is the job that is being made redundant, the person is just collateral damage).

having said all that the less than 1 year thing could be a kicker.

Jokester · 25 Jan 2012 at 20:18

the right to claim compensation if unfairly dismissed. In most cases you will have to have worked for one year to be able to claim unfair dismissal

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index...ex_ew/basic_rights_at_work.htm#Rights_at_work

Rroff · 25 Jan 2012 at 20:20

If they were just letting him go then yeah being there less than a year would be a kicker but if they are dismissing him then they are doing it all wrong.

wez130 · 25 Jan 2012 at 20:23

Jokester said:
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index...ex_ew/basic_rights_at_work.htm#Rights_at_work

Which is why i'm asking for someone who knows, as they haven't followed basic procedures!

jam pie · 25 Jan 2012 at 20:28

wez130 said:
I went back to work this morning after having a short break from work (5 days). When i finished my last shift on Thursday, everything was fine and dandy - all happy etc. This morning, i was called to a meeting with one of the external managers, and my business manager and told that they were letting me go due to low sales in the restaurant, takings for the last 12 weeks had been written down etc, and after xmas, takings have shot right down - which in the catering industry is the norm. I was also told that it was also partly because of a failed audit from when i was on holiday last year in July / August some time - completely out of my hands.

I have worked there 2 weeks short of a year, started 12th Feb 2011, and i was always being praised for my work, even over the busy xmas period etc. So to say this has come as a shock is an understatement, i loved my job and carried it out with pride, was always 20 minutes early for work etc.

The company was taken over in October last year by a bigger company, and the manager replaced with the current one, who i had a good relationship with, however, the manager has worked there previously and the chef at the time she worked there is one of her best friends, and i've a funny feeling that i've been dismissed so that this chef can take my job as head chef, i will know whether this is true or not in the next few days anyway.

Now, the fact i've been finished today and will be paid until the end of the month as my notice (working week starts sunday, monday tuesday are my contracted days off). This doesn't take me to a years continuous employment. However, on looking on http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index.../basic_rights_at_work.htm#notice_of_dismissal, it seems that they have not carried out my dismissal correctly, and that i should have a right to appeal before i am finally dismissed, as it was not because of gross misconduct. I come to this conclusion from this...

Firstly, i wasn't given a written statement, notifying me of their plans, i was not told what my meeting was about, and i wasn't given a chance of an appeal.

So, experts of OcUK, where do i stand?

Thx, Wez

This is fundementally a breach of your contract, thus consitituting 'wrongful dismissal', there is no qualifying period (ie. years service) attached to this.

Breach being that -
1. Your employer has failed to afford you appropriate notice
2. Breach of procedure (Disciplinary, no 3 step statutory procedure followed in line with ACAS requirements)

Note that an application must be made to an Employment Tribunal within 3 months of your dismissal.

Go have a chat with an employment law advisor, good luck.

jam pie · 25 Jan 2012 at 20:38

big_white_dog84 said:
Sounds like they are possibly making a balls of it, giving you a bit of hope. However don't let them know that you know they're making a balls of it, or they'll fix it before you can do anything. It sounds like redundancy to me which IIRC means they are not allowed to fill your post within x years (ie it is the job that is being made redundant, the person is just collateral damage).

having said all that the less than 1 year thing could be a kicker.

Doesn't sound like a redundancy situation exists here. More the case of them having their cake and eating it! Theyd have a really difficult time arguing redundancy if they have replaced him, plus there doesn't seem to be any genuine business reasons for deleting the post.

The only way your employer could possibly try and salvage this situation is by arguing that they dismissed you under SOSR - Some Other Substantial Reason. To do that they would have to have the evidence to show that upon appointment you fully understood that part of your conditions of service was to meet sales targets whilst demonstrating that you havent met the required standards.

dowie · 25 Jan 2012 at 20:40

manic111 said:
It sounds like redundancy to me, if they're saying that they're cutting staff due to reduced takings? The above guidance is for a disciplinary issue.

How was it worded to you? Redundancy? Or dismissal?

Doesn't sound anything like redundancy. With redundancy you make the position redundant, you can't then replace the person being made redundant as the whole point of it is that the position they were occupying isn't needed any more. If he was the main chef at a restaurant he isn't being made redundant...

OP should really go and see the CAB

manic111 · 25 Jan 2012 at 20:44

dowie said:
Doesn't sound anything like redundancy. With redundancy you make the position redundant, you can't then replace the person being made redundant as the whole point of it is that the position they were occupying isn't needed any more. If he was the main chef at a restaurant he isn't being made redundant...

OP should really go and see the CAB

Ah, I didn't see that the OP stated in his first post that he was head chef. As you'll see lower down the thread, once he clarified in another post to me that he was head chef, I agreed that it clearly wasn't redundancy.

dowie · 25 Jan 2012 at 20:46

The OP said he was head chef in the first post in this thread... And that he suspected they were going to replace him as such with the manager's friend.

manic111 · 25 Jan 2012 at 20:48

dowie said:
The OP said he was head chef in the first post in this thread...

I just said above that I missed that. As said, once he clarified that he wasn't head chef, I agreed that it wasn't redundancy, so I'm not entirely sure why you're jumping down my throat about it.

dowie · 25 Jan 2012 at 20:54

Erm all I did was explain a bit about redundancy, sorry if you think I was jumping down your throat.

Edit also didn't see your other reply immediately before my previous one - am posting from mobile...

peterattheboro · 25 Jan 2012 at 20:54

Good luck Wes. I'd say speak to a solicitor about it. You should get a free 15 minutes somewhere.

manic111 · 25 Jan 2012 at 20:56

dowie said:
Erm all I did was explain a bit about redundancy, sorry if you think I was jumping down your throat.

Edit also didn't see your other reply immediately before my previous one - am posting from mobile...

Fair enough then, all forgiven