The British Politics Thread - The Bear and Badger

Yossarian

Diluted Dante wrote:

I'm not saying this is another route. I'm saying this is THE route.

Not in the U.K.

With gross misconduct, you can dismiss the employee immediately as long as you follow a fair procedure. You should investigate the incident and give the employee a chance to respond before deciding to dismiss them.

https://www.gov.uk/dismiss-staff/dismissals-on-capability-or-conduct-grounds

Suspension during investigation is certainly best practise and is probably to be advised, but isn’t strictly necessary.

Diluted Dante

Instant dismissal, more accurately called summary dismissal or dismissal without notice, should only be considered in cases involving acts of 'gross misconduct'. Even then, fair disciplinary procedures must be followed, so dismissal is hardly ever literally 'instant'.

https://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=3905

RedDave2

Diluted Dante wrote:

I'm not saying this is another route. I'm saying this is THE route.

Yep. It's unlikely that the person wouldn't get fired but you have to have a cool off period, usually 24 hour, and a meeting where the employee can present their case. There may have been other issues that hadn't been brought into light yet (say the person who punched was being harassed by the victim)

Yossarian

Hardly ever != never.

RedDave2

Yossarian wrote:

Hardly ever != never.

Why leave yourself open? Suspend the employee immediately and send home. Organise follow up meeting and dismiss. It's not a tricky concept.

Yossarian

From further on in that article:

Failing to establish the facts before taking action and holding a meeting with the employee, and denying the employee the right to appeal is highly likely to be considered unfair at an employment tribunal and lead to a claim against the employer.

It’s not like you can’t do it, it’s just that you may potentially open yourself up to further issues at a tribunal if you do, it doesn’t mean that you’d necessarily lose if you chose to fight it.

In my hypothetical situation of one employee punching another in front of witnesses, do you really think that the employer would lose a tribunal if they sacked the person on the spot?

dynamiteReady

Can anyone shed some light on why people are suggesting that Labour should refuse the offer of an early election?

I'm guessing it's because Boris assumes he can count on the vote being a binary choice, where one of the two sides appears to be too divided to draw enough support to win.

Diluted Dante

OK, we'll put it this way. If you fire someone on the spot, there is a 99.99% chance that you will lose at tribunal with an unfair dismissal claim.

Your bolded part refers to dismissing the employee with no notice period, not immediately following the incident. I've yet to find any example of where it is entirely lawful to fire someone on the spot. Even the example you gave, punching someone at work, I've found sites saying on the spot firing would not be lawful.

Yossarian

dynamiteReady wrote:

Can anyone shed some light on why people are suggesting that Labour should refuse the offer of an early election?

Owing to the fact that Johnson could change the date after it was called to post-31st of October when we would have crashed out, plus the fact that allowing him to attempt an election before the 31st gives him an advantage in regards to squeezing BXP votes.

I agree that Labour should abstain on this until the legislation is locked in.

Yossarian

Diluted Dante wrote:

OK, we'll put it this way. If you fire someone on the spot, there is a 99.99% chance that you will lose at tribunal with an unfair dismissal claim.

I reckon there’s a 99.99% chance you’ve plucked this figure out of thin air.

dynamiteReady

Yossarian wrote:

dynamiteReady wrote:

Can anyone shed some light on why people are suggesting that Labour should refuse the offer of an early election?

Owing to the fact that Johnson could change the date after it was called to post-31st of October when we would have crashed out, plus the fact that allowing him to attempt an election before the 31st gives him an advantage in regards to squeezing BXP votes. I agree that Labour should abstain on this until the legislation is locked in.

Can't a guarantee on a date be secured to mitigate against that fear as an obstruction?

RedDave2

Yossarian wrote:

From further on in that article:

Failing to establish the facts before taking action and holding a meeting with the employee, and denying the employee the right to appeal is highly likely to be considered unfair at an employment tribunal and lead to a claim against the employer.

It’s not like you can’t do it, it’s just that you may potentially open yourself up to further issues at a tribunal if you do, it doesn’t mean that you’d necessarily lose if you chose to fight it.

In my hypothetical situation of one employee punching another in front of witnesses, do you really think that the employer would lose a tribunal if they sacked the person on the spot?

Turns out employee b was bullying employee a and it had gone too far. Management were shown to have done nothing about it when it was brought to their attention. Employee a felt they the bullying was become dangerous and felt they had to defend themselves.

Or

At a Christmas party, management allowed staff to get so drunk on a company event where alcohol was paid for by the company which led to the incident. While the employee is responsible for their actions there is nothing in their criminal record to say they are a violent person and that it was management's responsibility when giving out free booze to ensure that alcohol consumption was not out of control.

Yossarian

dynamiteReady wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

dynamiteReady wrote:

Can anyone shed some light on why people are suggesting that Labour should refuse the offer of an early election?

Owing to the fact that Johnson could change the date after it was called to post-31st of October when we would have crashed out, plus the fact that allowing him to attempt an election before the 31st gives him an advantage in regards to squeezing BXP votes. I agree that Labour should abstain on this until the legislation is locked in.

Can't a guarantee on a date be secured to mitigate against that fear as an obstruction?

It’s potentially possible, but I believe it would require more legislation in very little time.

Yossarian

RedDave2 wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

From further on in that article:

Failing to establish the facts before taking action and holding a meeting with the employee, and denying the employee the right to appeal is highly likely to be considered unfair at an employment tribunal and lead to a claim against the employer.

It’s not like you can’t do it, it’s just that you may potentially open yourself up to further issues at a tribunal if you do, it doesn’t mean that you’d necessarily lose if you chose to fight it.

In my hypothetical situation of one employee punching another in front of witnesses, do you really think that the employer would lose a tribunal if they sacked the person on the spot?

Turns out employee b was bullying employee a and it had gone too far. Management were shown to have done nothing about it when it was brought to their attention. Employee a felt they the bullying was become dangerous and felt they had to defend themselves.

Or

At a Christmas party, management allowed staff to get so drunk on a company event where alcohol was paid for by the company which led to the incident. While the employee is responsible for their actions there is nothing in their criminal record to say they are a violent person and that it was management's responsibility when giving out free booze to ensure that alcohol consumption was not out of control.

These are good reasons why this is best practise.

Diluted Dante

Yossarian wrote:

Diluted Dante wrote:

OK, we'll put it this way. If you fire someone on the spot, there is a 99.99% chance that you will lose at tribunal with an unfair dismissal claim.

I reckon there’s a 99.99% chance you’ve plucked this figure out of thin air.

What due process has been followed if you fire someone immediately after an incident? It doesn't actually matter for the purposes of a tribunal if the employee did the thing they are accused of. If the company doesn't follow process, they will lose.

Someone when I worked at Game was caught red handed stealing large amounts of stock. Game didn't follow process when firing him, his firing was reversed, Game ordered to re-employ him and he was awarded compensation.

The reason that I didn't say 100% is because it appears that there may possibly be a circumstance that you can get away with this, but I can't find a single example of what this might be.

Yossarian

I’m quite impressed with the balls on that employee, but it’s hard to comment on that without knowing more about the case. Was it really simply owing to a failure to follow procedure or was it a failure to follow procedure alongside a failure to prove that the employee was stealing?

Diluted Dante

Nope, they had him bang to rights. Video evidence, and the regional manager caught him loading the stock into a van. He was selling it on eBay, so they could see everything that he'd had and compare it to stock missing from his store.

Places like Game frequently rely on people not knowing their rights. Half the time the managers don't know what they are either.

Yossarian

I can only shrug at the above, I’ve no clue what might have been going on there. Not sure that one case necessarily justifies your 99.99% claim, though.

RedDave2

Yossarian wrote:

I can only shrug at the above, I’ve no clue what might have been going on there. Not sure that one case necessarily justifies your 99.99% claim, though.

Well let's flip it, can you find a case where an immediate firing was uphelp?

Yossarian

I can’t name the outcomes of any employment tribunals at all, but I’m not pulling out figures here.

Roujin

I'm here to corroborate Dante and RedDave, you can usually only be immediately dismissed for gross misconduct or gross negligence, however as people have pointed out, the employer still has to confirm that gross misconduct/negligence has occurred before they can fire anyone.

That is impossible to do on the spot because you will not be able to show due diligence was carried out to rule out extenuating/external factors in the case in the event the employee wishes to contest the decision.

Also there is just the reality of the speed that things move up the chain within a business to the person responsible for making the final decision, which will put some kind of time delay on a decision like this being made anyway. So the best practice is to send the employee concerned home and suspend them with pay until the investigation is completed and they are recalled to either be fired or be given a final written warning if extenuating circumstances excuse their behaviour to arrive degree.

In america though (maybe dependant on the state?) you're getting fired on the spot for whatever and that's that.

In your example of someone getting punched Yoss, the guilty party is still entitled to due process, and still has the right to contest the decision regardless of the severity of their actions. That is why no competent company is ever going to fire someone on the spot and hope it's not contested at a tribunal.

Kow

I'd imagine employee protection is something from the EU, so you'll probably be able to fire anyone immediately for whatever reason in a few weeks time.

Kow

And maybe shoot them too.

Roujin

Oh yeah totes, I think we're just going to crtl+c ctrl+v whatever Donny tells us to into legislation so we can have our chlorinated chimken trade.

Yossarian

Here's what we're expecting in the Commons today:
1530: PM statement on G7
1630: Javid on Brexit preps
1730: Williamson on schools funding
1830: Speaker hears rebels' application for SO24 debate
If granted – debate can last 3 hrs or until 2200
So, key vote likely 2130/2200ish

https://twitter.com/lucyplint/status/1168857449010475008

Minnesänger

Yossarian wrote:

[
1830: Speaker hears rebels' application for SO24 debate
If granted – debate can last 3 hrs or until 2200

That’s one way to push back the deadline.

Diluted Dante

Heh.

The Spectator has 16 MP's down as rebelling against the Government today, with a further 12 potential.

It would be something if Phillip Hammond rebels, but Ken Clarke doesn't.

Yossarian

Early reports are that few Labour rebels are minded to vote against this either. Johnson’s looking to chalk up his first loss in record* time.

* May not actually be a record.

Lord_Griff

It is funny that this place has only accumulated individuals with left leaning ideologies.

trippy

Can I be bothered to set up an Adolf Hitler account for the sake of a lame joke? No, I cannot.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories