Early dismissal?

[Ian Lawrence]

Good evening everyone. My question is a s follows. I will advise you as best as I can as the subject is my step daughter. She has been working for the current employer for just over a year. She has no disciplinary record as far as I know. She applied for another position with a local health authority. Due to the fact that they required references she informed them (verbally) that she had procured another position. The employer seemed quite happy and asked her if he could improve her conditions to make her think again. The health authority have taken some considerable time to process her application (as is standard in this industry) and she has been regularly asked if and when she will be leaving.
The employer has already interviewed and it appears offered the position to a colleagues friend.
Today (Friday) as she was leaving the Manager spoke to her aside and informed her that as of 2nd November there would be no position for her as the company as it could not afford extra staff within the department. (we assume that the new employee would start on the 2nd)

Now I am quite sure that she will succeed in her new venture but the timing is an issue. I further believe that she will be in post by the 2nd. However I am trying to understand her rights and position. She has not handed her notice in writing. She has to give (I believe) 4 weeks written notice.

Could somebody give me a basic understanding of where we are at?
Ian

[judgemental24]

Re: Early dismissal?

If she is being made redundant they will then pay her any remaining notice period if they want her gone by xyz date

Her own notice period will not matter as the employer will be giving her PILON

That is Pay in Lieu Of Notice

They are in a sense buying her out of her contract

[Ian Lawrence]

Re: Early dismissal?

If she is being made redundant they will then pay her any remaining notice period if they want her gone by xyz date

Her own notice period will not matter as the employer will be giving her PILON

That is Pay in Lieu Of Notice

They are in a sense buying her out of her contract

Okay so thankyou for your response. There was no indication of redundancy. They just stated that they would not have a job for her after 2nd November as they had (we believe) somebody else. She has only offered a verbal notice saying it was her intention to take another position. In my opinion (sorry I have limited knowledge) they are purely dispensing with her services from 2nd November. She will be paid until 30th October (Friday) and goodnight Vienna. Surely without a disciplinary procedure they cannot just remove her?

Ian

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Early dismissal?

Okay so thankyou for your response. There was no indication of redundancy. They just stated that they would not have a job for her after 2nd November as they had (we believe) somebody else.

If they are getting someone else to replace here it wouldn't be redundancy as it's the position and not the person that becomes redundant.

She has only offered a verbal notice saying it was her intention to take another position. In my opinion (sorry I have limited knowledge) they are purely dispensing with her services from 2nd November. She will be paid until 30th October (Friday) and goodnight Vienna. Surely without a disciplinary procedure they cannot just remove her?

She told them she was leaving so they've gone and found a replacement, why should there be a disciplinary procedure? They didn't decide to sack her, she told them she had another job.

It is customary (at least in the private sector) to make job offers subject to references (and sometimes other conditions such as police or credit checks) and you only authorise your new employers to contact your current employers for references once you've got a solid job offer, in which case you'd give your notice before they are contacted.

[judgemental24]

Re: Early dismissal?

No , have to pay her redundancy or be in breach of contract

She needs to ask what redundancy terms they are offering as to her contract of employment

Update when she gets a response

I say redundancy as they have already said they cannot accomodate any extra staff so a consultation would be irrelevannt

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Early dismissal?

No , have to pay her redundancy or be in breach of contract

She needs to ask what redundancy terms they are offering as to her contract of employment

Update when she gets a response

Redundancy? She told them she'd found another job so they went and found a replacement for her. It doesn't sound like redundancy to me, and even if it was, she'd only be entitled to redundancy pay after two years working there. :mmph:

Good evening everyone. My question is a s follows. I will advise you as best as I can as the subject is my step daughter. She has been working for the current employer for just over a year. She has no disciplinary record as far as I know. She applied for another position with a local health authority. Due to the fact that they required references she informed them (verbally) that she had procured another position. The employer seemed quite happy and asked her if he could improve her conditions to make her think again. The health authority have taken some considerable time to process her application (as is standard in this industry) and she has been regularly asked if and when she will be leaving.
The employer has already interviewed and it appears offered the position to a colleagues friend.
Today (Friday) as she was leaving the Manager spoke to her aside and informed her that as of 2nd November there would be no position for her as the company as it could not afford extra staff within the department. (we assume that the new employee would start on the 2nd)

[judgemental24]

Re: Early dismissal?

Looking over it again you are correct Flamingparrot,

i could not understand why she was being made redundant yet another person was being interviewd for the job
as you said it is the person, not the job role that gets made redundant

Should have gone to spec savers me thinks

[dan_1207]

Re: Early dismissal?

Looking over it again you are correct Flamingparrot,

i could not understand why she was being made redundant yet another person was being interviewd for the job
as you said it is the person, not the job role that gets made redundant

Should have gone to spec savers me thinks

Job role, not person that becomes redundant.

[judgemental24]

Re: Early dismissal?

Stand corrected

I said i should visit spec savers

[Ian Lawrence]

Re: Early dismissal?

Stand corrected

I said i should visit spec savers

Okay everyone. I may have not explained myself correctly. I will bullet point my/her situation

• She was told that she had an unconditional offer of a job with the local health authority which would be conditional following the correct checks and refs. She therefore told her new employer that as a gesture of good will.
• She indicated her resignation by verbal opportunity out of respect for her employer.
• The conditional offer has not been made yet as checks are not all complete.
• They are saying she has to go as they cannot employ 4 people in the job. There is a manager,and two staff at present. With the new employee it would make a manager and three.
• She has been told they cannot employ her past 2nd November as the new member starts that day.
• I was not implying there should be any form of disciplinary...I was just pointing out that she has had a first class record with no disciplinary procedures and therfore is personally not in breach of her contract. I was making the point that they had no basis to remove her other than that they had employed a person for a job role that was not available?

Am I completely wrong here to think that they can tell her to go based on her verbal indication that she would be leaving (sooner or later most of us leave a job) and a genuine respect for the employer informing them that the health authority would be taking refs.

The health authority here will offer a job based on what has been said and read in interview. They then clarify all is correct by taking refs. Hence the "unconditional" position later (after refs) becoming a conditional offer. Surely she had no option not to tell them?
Ian

[Kati]

Re: Early dismissal?

did she (verbally or written) give a date she expected to leave her current position?

[Berniethebolt]

Re: Early dismissal?

Whilst I do not agree with what her company has done, legally so long as they pay her the contractual notice , which may well only be 1 week then unfortunately she has little recourse . You have to be employed for two years before you have any job protection in the ordinary sense .
You may want to check the contract as the notice period on the companies part may be longer, I would also suggest that this would need to be in writing . If it is longer they will need to pay her the appropriate notice.
Has she had written confirmation of the job offer and has she formally accepted it?

I also suspect that the company mistook her keeping them in the loop as resignation , the problem is that as they then discussed what they would need to do to keep her and it appears that the answer was nothing it would be reasonable to have accepted it.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Early dismissal?

Okay everyone. I may have not explained myself correctly. I will bullet point my/her situation

• She was told that she had an unconditional offer of a job with the local health authority which would be conditional following the correct checks and refs. She therefore told her new employer that as a gesture of good will.
• She indicated her resignation by verbal opportunity out of respect for her employer.
• The conditional offer has not been made yet as checks are not all complete.

I assume the job offer would have been CONDITIONAL to start with, as it was subject to references and checks. An unconditional offer would be just that, no conditions attached so not subject to anything. Normally there would be just a conditional job offer and if they are happy with the checks then they'd issue a contract of employment rather than a further job offer.

• They are saying she has to go as they cannot employ 4 people in the job. There is a manager,and two staff at present. With the new employee it would make a manager and three.
  
• She has been told they cannot employ her past 2nd November as the new member starts that day.
• I was not implying there should be any form of disciplinary...I was just pointing out that she has had a first class record with no disciplinary procedures and therfore is personally not in breach of her contract. I was making the point that they had no basis to remove her other than that they had employed a person for a job role that was not available?

Am I completely wrong here to think that they can tell her to go based on her verbal indication that she would be leaving (sooner or later most of us leave a job) and a genuine respect for the employer informing them that the health authority would be taking refs.

Yes, most people do leave their jobs but one thing is to say something in an informal way like: "I'd love to get out of here and move to Sunny Spain", another is to tell them you've secured another position and they'll soon be hearing from her new employers asking for references. This was obviously construed as her giving notice rather than just wishful thinking or a bit of a rant on a day when things went wrong. As a result, they sought a replacement for her.

The health authority here will offer a job based on what has been said and read in interview. They then clarify all is correct by taking refs. Hence the "unconditional" position later (after refs) becoming a conditional offer. Surely she had no option not to tell them?
Ian

Most job offers are conditional rather than unconditional as you say, they are made subject to references and other relevant checks. Most (permanent) jobs require you to give at least four weeks notice, you'd give yours when you get a job offer so the new employer wouldn't be contacting your current employer for references until you've informed them. Once you inform them, they will start the process of finding a replacement for the departing employee which is the reason for requiring notice to be given. Sounds like this is exactly what's happened here so I see nothing unusual. I don't see any suggestion of the current employers giving negative references or the new ones having withdrawn the job offer. :noidea:

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Early dismissal?

Whilst I do not agree with what her company has done, legally so long as they pay her the contractual notice , which may well only be 1 week then unfortunately she has little recourse . You have to be employed for two years before you have any job protection in the ordinary sense .

With most permanent jobs, the contractual notice period would probably be four weeks rather than just one, one week per year of service is what you'd get from the Insolvency Fund if the company went bust or if you claimed wrongful dismissal, it would be unusual for an employee to be just on a week's notice as stated on their contract. Usually it is a week's notice during the probationary period, then it goes up to four weeks. Having said that, if she told them she was leaving and she's carried on working there and being paid, that would be considered part of the notice period, it's the same for EITHER side. If she gave four weeks notice she should be paid for four weeks, regardless of whether she works the full four weeks or not. Some companies choose to put leavers on garden leave but they should still be paid for the full notice period.

[Ian Lawrence]

Re: Early dismissal?

She verbally indicated she would leave as long as references were okay etc.