Sacked

[breathe21]

my friends son has been sacked, the reason, he has been late 3 times only by 2 mins each time but because he has not worked there 6 months they have said they have every right to sack him, seems a bit harsh to me unless there is another reason, are they in their right to sack him like this?

[TWR]

With respect Breathe, been late is disrespectful, was he late for his interview?

[chelle7272]

Yes they can, they want staff they can rely on.

[breathe21]

No he was on time for interview lol. I agree he should of been in on time.

[factor-fiction]

They can dismiss someone who's been there up to 12 months for almost any reason (except things like race and being a trade union member). It seems harsh but they are allowed to do it.
I'd be surprised though that they would do this for such a small number of minutes unless they had other issues with his performance too or time keeping was essential in the role (e.g. train driver).
I'm not sure how much reliance I'd place on the information given unless you know the friend very well.

[VHG]

Very unlikely it was 2 minutes "each time".

However much more likely they needed to reduce staff and he was an easy target being the newest.

[lcg]

yes....if you have been employed for less than a year you have virtually no rights to challenge this decision. he can only complain/lodge an appeal if any issues of race, disability or gender etc. has been contravened. being persistently late (even a few times) is an acceptable grounds for sacking. sorry.

[breathe21]

thanks everyone

[LyndaB]

Yes, they can sack him because they don't like the colour of his eyes if they want - you have to be employed by the same company for 12 months before you have recourse to an industrial tribunal. The only exceptions (I believe) are if you are dismissed on the grounds of sex, race, or trade union membership

[Secretary99]

Another example of this government taking us back to the 1870s.

[ummmm]

How's that then?

[Secretary99]

Someone works hard and gets sacked just for being a couple of minutes late!! This government is determined to put the excessive power in the hands of employers and try to increase productivity through employee fear and dread...just like the 1870s

[ummmm]

I don't think so. It's only in the first year of employment that you can be sacked for no reason. After that certain procedures have to followed. I doubt that happened in the 1870s

[Secretary99]

It is true after 12 months employment certain procedures have to be followed but if they are not what then? Employment Tribunals are very keen to make each party settle usually at very low sums (£1,500 - £3,000) ie. one or two months' pay. Bullying and Stress is increasing in the workplace and the government are looking into employees contracting out of the employment legislation in return for a few shares..very 1870s I'd say.

[ummmm]

Did they have 'no win no fee' solicitors in the 1870s?

[Secretary99]

Probably not Ummmm but their effectiveness is going to be more and more limited as (a) Tribunals are told by the government not to make excessive payouts; (b) the 12 months period becomes 24 months; and (c) the rising number of employees becoming self-employed or agency workers.