[Closed] Firing staff

Brooes post was , in effect, the only one with any substance, and he will be given a bollocking and verbal warning and expalined to that it all stops right now. Last chance son . It also surfaced today that he somehow escaped a custodial sentance for theft, just got a suspended sentance.

So just like pretty much everyone else told you.

Have you got some evidence now?

I think it had something to do with the fact that the employer did not report this to police, as they are legally obliged to do (if you aware a crime has happened, you are legally obliged to inform the police, or risk being guilty of joint enterprise of whatever it's called),

What's a "benderism"?

[i]What's a "benderism"?[/i]

It's a singletrackmindism 😆

A benderism is a term that a wet behind the ears kid would use, perhaps the sort of casual insult a clueless person out of their depth might use.

Just my opinion. What the **** do I know.

What's a "benderism"?

"Bite my Shiny Metal Ass" is the only one that springs to mind.

This is "badgeresque" comedy gold!

I'm personally loving the anger induced typos. Bash dem keys baby 😛

What's a "benderism"?

[img] [/img]

There is another important element to this story that STM hasn't divulged.. not sure whether I should...

What's a "benderism"?

Benderism is what has now been divulged. Although the divulge was really more of an outburst.

Bite my shiny metal ass.

singletrackmind - Member
You know what
I wouldnt want any of you and your liberal , wrap it up in cotton wool , give me a hug , lets do some role play, benderisms working for me.

^^I think this excerpt and the post says rather a lot about your attitude, which regardless of the guilt of your employee is a disgrace. If people don't agree with you they are inferior and you insult them. Many of the people offering reasonable advice (Including me) gave you the benefit of the doubt based on your lack of management experience. It seems from your last words that you didn't deserve it.

Oh and while I wouldn't tolerate petty theft, I wouldn't tolerate a team manager who wanted to terminate someone with poor evidence either.

Your welcome OP, anything else you'd like our help with? 😆

You're confusing an attitude to internet forum posters with an attitude to working the real world there jamj1974. Easily done, I know.

I wouldnt want any of you and your liberal , wrap it up in cotton wool , give me a hug , lets do some role play, benderisms working for me.

Erm...did you read any of the last few pages? Quite a few of us are trying to save your arse from the inevitable reaming because you can't constructively contain an issue that started out as pilfered biscuits, but it reads more and more as though you're unable to command any respect in your workplace. Not only that, you've freely acknowledged a reasonably serious health and safety breach has taken place with regard to the diluted acids. You've also guilelessly admitted you're ultimately responsible for it...

However , As i am not manager of the month i forgot to check that he would be in work today , and it transpired he had a day booked off as holiday .

You arranged a disciplinary for someone, but "forgot" to check whether they were actually in that day? Seriously, this has to be some sort of a wind up, surely?

Christ.

I could fill the position really easily at very low cost if I had to.

Of course, why wouldn't anyone wish to simply work for you for free?

And once again, because I couldn't believe what I had just read:

...benderisms

1975 called, it wants it's playground insults back. If this is the level of guile you have to fall back on when you're being given free advice that you don't like, then I would urge you to strongly reconsider whether you're cut out for any supervisory role.

Apologies for the lack of humour, but I'm out.

I think we finally know where Gareth Kennan ended up after leaving Wernham Hogg.

Stm I doubt many would even consider working for you after this.

I could fill the position really easily at very low cost if I had to.

Buy cheap, buy twice. 🙂

Oh.

Dear.

Imagine working in the hospitality industry and over the course of your 15 year career having to sack several people who were friends at that point in time.

Whatever else happens, never forget that its real people's lives your messing with. Sometimes they cant help but give you no choice, but most of the time, its down to you as the boss to find a way of making them better rather than finding someone better.

Gobuchul you want to copy and paste the rest of that law or just the part that makes you look right?

Which part don't you understand?

[url= https://www.gov.uk/dismiss-staff/eligibility-to-claim-unfair-dismissal ]https://www.gov.uk/dismiss-staff/eligibility-to-claim-unfair-dismissal[/url]

[url= https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/work-comes-to-an-end/dismissal/#Step_five_is_the_reason_for_the_dismissa ]Citizens Advice[/url]

Reasons for claiming unfair dismissal where you will have to have worked for long enough to be able to claim are:-

your employer says you are not capable of doing the job (see below)
your employer says you do not have the necessary qualifications to do the job (see below)
your employer says your conduct has been poor (see below)
your employer says you have done something illegal (see below)
your employer says you are redundant (see below)
some other reason your employer has given for dismissing you.

Without 24 months employment you can't claim for the above reasons unless it is "automatically unfair", those reasons relate to discrimination. trade union activity etc. Not for stealing sweets and pissing the boss of.

Stealing comes under criminal activity, that needs to be followed to show that it was investigated correctly.

Can the OP prove who reported the offence? No. The staff member could claim it was them and the OP response was to fire him without investigation and refused to record the report.

OP - if you do decide that sacking him is the best you can do for him, do him a favour and point him in the direction of Timpsons - c 10% of their workforce are ex-offenders. It is possible to take someone with a record of criminal behaviour and give them the opportunity to turn their life around and if you don't want to do that, let someone else - for this lad's sake...

[url= https://www.timpson.co.uk/about/careers-at-timpson ]Timpson[/url]

OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL

Timpson really are an equal opportunities employer. We consider anyone for our vacancies as long as they are able to do the job. This includes ex-offenders and other marginalised groups. We recruit exclusively on personality and expect all of colleagues to be happy, confident and chatty individuals.

I had no idea managers were so influential and awesome. Thanks thread!

Hard to see how anything could be made to stick as there is nothing in the way of actual proof about any of the offences.

With so many possibilities and the likelyhood of mr manager being walked all over in court (should it go that far), I'd be getting everybody together that works in the area and letting them all know as a collective what has been going on.

Then say if it continues, the company will be forced to install CCTV cameras for security and insurance reasons.

That way you are not pointing fingers directly but let everybody know you know what is going on.

Not entirely sure of the law about cameras tbh (will likely need a new contract with the employees), but a place I worked at did it 15 yrs ago and caught somebody stealing beer from the office.

too late to edit...

I was once seen removing a toilet roll from the building where i worked. The person who saw me was a bit of a ****. A few weeks later the MD pulled me into his office and accused me of stealing eggs from the fridge. I wasn't particularly happy at being called a thief and when asked why he thought it was me, he told me about the 4 star ^^ who had caught me stealing a toilet roll a few weeks earlier and this made me the prime suspect. Once i told him what really happened - that i had borrowed the toilet roll to dry the seat of my motorbike before getting on, and had left it back when i'd finished, he looked a bit sheepish and apologised. There may or not be a moral in there but i think we can all agree, it's a cool story bro...

Sounds like there's more to this than meets the eye..
Some dominance issues perhaps?

It's not been made clear in your posts what your communications with the lad have been like during the escalations..
You talk about cotton wool liberal management advice, but I'm sure this could have been nipped in the bud early if you could have asserted your authority in a very basic bloke fashion..

It does sound like it's gotten well out of hand now though, and that you are being bullied at work.. It must be pretty bad for your self esteem

I'd be giving him a proper fiery roasting.. Laying out some clear boundaries with a first and final warning

"Most of the advice on here is the same as yours."

The only 'advice' I'm giving is to think things through very carefully, and seek proper legal advice. A situation like this can be a potential legal minefield, and the OP/company runs the risk of suffering significant damage if they don't prepare their case properly.

The OP's subsequent post reveals that they are inexperienced and possibly unsuited to management. If I were the owner of that company, that would give me far greater cause for alarm than someone stealing some chocolate eggs.

Mostly what I get reading this again is the OP coming in to "brag" he is going to fire someone then have a go at anyone trying to suggest he might have it wrong.

If I were the owner of that company, that would give me far greater cause for alarm than someone stealing some chocolate eggs.

Very true

I am in the process of considering the future of one of our apprentices. He is not up to the job, has been messing about during college lessons (evidence from lecturer), has an appalling sickness record and has failed to respond to the many chats we have had. It's coming to the break point and sadly I think that I'm going to have to let him go. I'm not only disappointed in them but also in me as I haven't been able turn the situation around. IMO sacking is a last resort.

Timpson's sounds like it's run by some righteous dudes.

All Timpson colleagues get their Birthday off. We believe that nobody should have to work on their Birthday!

We offer our colleagues free use of our holiday homes throughout the UK.

We also offer you use of the company limousine if you get married, as well getting an extra £100 in your wages and a week off work!

I don't know what I like better, Timpson's or this thread.

"This is completely wrong."

You're right, it is. Just as well I'm not a lawyer. 😆

I don't have all the details of that case so am just (wrongly) speculating. All I know is that the employee was accused by the company of theft, without proof (and in fact without it actually being 'theft', technically), which fell foul of some aspect of employment law, I [i]think[/i]. It would be interesting to have more details, as without them it's a bit difficult to work out why the company are now in a very bad situation. I used it as an example to try to deter the OP/company they work for from making a rash decision that could have potentially very serious consequences.

I used it as an example to try to deter the OP/company they work for from making a rash decision that could have potentially very serious consequences.

Why is everyone over complicating things?

For about the sixth time, rightly or wrongly, the OP's employee does not have the right to claim unfair dismissal, unless it could be seen as race/sex discrimination etc. as they only have worked there 11 months.

All the company has to do is say that they are "unsuitable for the job" or similar guff.

In 21st Century UK, unless you have been in a job for 24 months, then you basically have no employment rights. It's pretty shit but that's the law.

It's not clear cut as that but you're ignoring that.

In 21st Century UK, unless you have been in a job for 24 months, then you basically have no employment rights. It's pretty shit but that's the law.

"Why is everyone over complicating things?"

Because things have a habit of suddenly becoming very complicated once they get into a court room. What's important here is to save the OP and their company from that. Now we don't have anything but the OP's account of things here, from which to base an informed analysis. I'd hazard a guess it's not as clear-cut as may seem. And if so, then there may be myriad other factors which could affect the situation. None of us have any idea what the real situation is, beyond the OP's account. Ergo, it might be an idea for those involved to ensure they are in a watertight position.

"In 21st Century UK, unless you have been in a job for 24 months, then you basically have no employment rights. It's pretty shit but that's the law."

It's a really good thing [i]neither[/i] of us are lawyers. 😆

"All the company has to do is say that they are "unsuitable for the job" or similar guff."

Yes, but they still need to be able to cover their arses. As Drac says; it's not as clear cut as that.

If you want to sack someone for theft you do not need to prove beyond reasonable doubt, you just need to have reasonable belief.

It's not clear cut as that but you're ignoring that.

Explain please?

If the OP sacks this employee and the employee thinks it's unfair, then his only option is to claim unfair dismissal. However, he is not legally entitled to do so as he has not worked their long enough. So what happens? Nothing.

Because things have a habit of suddenly becoming very complicated once they get into a court room.

It Will Never Go To Court. He Has No Right To Claim Unfair Dismissal.

Yes, but they still need to be able to cover their arses. As Drac says; it's not as clear cut as that.

They Do Not Need To Cover Their Arses. He Has No Right To Claim Unfair Dismissal.

[url= http://employmentlawclinic.com/articles/employment-rights-in-first-12-months/ ]http://employmentlawclinic.com/articles/employment-rights-in-first-12-months/[/url]

While the right not to be unfairly dismissed can be available from the moment an employment contract is agreed, employees often cannot pursue a complaint against an employer for an unfair dismissal unless they have been employed for at least 12 months if the employment started on or before 5 April 2012, or 24 months otherwise – for employments that commenced on or after 6 April 2012. There are exceptions, where dismissal is said to be ‘automatically’ unfair; in these cases, an employee can bring a claim to an Employment Tribunal regardless of length of service.

Reasons that qualify for automatic unfair dismissal include dismissals associated with the transfer of a business (Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE)), health & safety, discrimination, trade union membership or activities, as well as many others.

Gobuchul; I think you are seeing this in far too simplistic terms. Yes; on the surface, it may appear a cut and dry dismissal case. But none of us bar the OP are party to any other information about this particular case, such as what is laid out in the employment contract (for example things like disciplinary procedures etc), the relationship between the workers, or anything else that we haven't been told about, that may eventually come up in a court of law. It may well be that the OP sacks the employee, and nothing more comes of it. But as I've tried to point out, if the OP and their company do not do everything to make sure they have acted 100% within the bounds of the law, they may end up in a very difficult and potentially damaging situation. I'm sorry If I didn't make things clearer, maybe I didn't quite express it the way I should have.

And in the quote you posted yourself:

"employees [b]often[/b] cannot pursue a complaint against an employer"

Note the word 'often'. It is very important.

In law, it is never a good idea to assume you have your arse covered. Always make sure it actually is.

that may eventually come up in a court of law.

It never will.

The only way is if he claim some kind of "automatically unfair" reason.

[url= http://www.lawdonut.co.uk/law/employment-law/dismissals-and-redundancies/circumstances-when-a-dismissal-is-automatically-unfair ]http://www.lawdonut.co.uk/law/employment-law/dismissals-and-redundancies/circumstances-when-a-dismissal-is-automatically-unfair[/url]

If he the OP feels that this bloke is unsuitable, for what ever reason, then he can let him go.

Only if the bloke can show he has been discriminated against for some of the reasons highlighted above can he claim unfair dismissal.

This law was brought in by the Tories to encourage companies to take on new staff and reduce unemployment. At least that's what they claimed. Some twisted logic there.

Can you claim unfair dismissal if you believe you are being held responsible for a crime you didn't commit?

Ok Gobuchul; I don't see the point of continuing this 'argument' as you' seem to be convinced you're right. Personally, I'd seek the advice of a qualified professional. It's up to the OP what course of action to take. I know which one I'd be taking.

Also if the alleged offender can swing it in to a discrimination case (easy with to do if they have half a brain) and or a whistleblowing matter then the OP is on a sticky wicket.

To the op - any firm of any size will have procedures to follow. Only a slack operation will allow managers to make the decision without referring it. Do you even have authority to fire without referral to the HR function?

Take advice, do it properly. Let's play devils advocate for a moment. You fire the lad. It backfires spectacularly and the firm ends up being dragged into a tribunal (it can happen for the reasons I opened with). Your management then start asking questions of you. Have you covered your arse?

I have first hand experience of employment matters and what looks a nailed on dead cert can suddenly get very very messy with a competely unexpected outcome.

Aversion therapy is the way forward OP, you'll need a load more mini eggs but they're going [s]cheep[/s] cheap now.

You have the right to ask why you were dismissed, in this case it was over some mini eggs and possibly some petty cash. The victim can then claim it was then who reported that incident, as a whistle blower, where's the OP evidence it was investigated he didn't just sack a whistle blower. I mean after all only the OP had the key to the locker.