Unfair Dismissal Act is Unfair...

frecklz

...because it doesn't kick in until you've at least 1 year's service with the company. I was just let go a week after we were told to put up vacancy ads in the window. They no longer had a position for me due to cutbacks (!??) I asked what the ads were for and they said "the future, ie Christmas"!!! I then asked could I not just apply for one of those vacancies, and was told "No"!!!!

Long story short - the company is notorious for hiring and firing and will. The owner once said if the branch didn't do better figures he would replace the staff and start over. It's not our fault there's a recession!!!:mad::mad::mad:

One girl was fired cos she could only work weekends (which she was doing for months). Then we started to close Sundays. Then we were back opening Sundays within a few weeks, and hired someone else to cover them!

Can I name names here? Because I'd love to organise a mass boycott of the whole chain of shops.

shoegirl

I agree that its unfair in the case of many employees who are genuine, but unfortunately there are a lot of tossers who would abuse it if it were shortened.

I do think employees need protection, however its laughable that somebody can sit around doing nothing for years, or persistently come in late and then get away with it because a precedent was set.

I've colleague who has got to a point of tardiness where he comes in on time about once every 4 weeks. And I don't mean a minute or two, I'm talking 20-30 minutes every day. And I suspect because it is going on now for several months if he were to be disciplined on it now, he could argue that it didn't bother them for the previous 4 months. This is kind of thing I'm talking about.

frecklz

Yes I suppose it's there to weed out the newbies who are taking the p*ss. I'm just so frustrated at the moment, because I put in 10 months of hard work, got promoted on my third day in the company, and was more or less running the place. And they got rid of me without so much as a "good luck in the future" or "thank you" or "we're sorry..."! It was simply a case of we don't have a job for you any more - goodbye.

Thanks for your reply.

I wonder is there any room for me on that dole queue?

leeroybrown

While the employer doesn't sound all that pleasant, none of what mentioned above would probably be an unfair dismissal anyway. Even if you or that girl had been there 12 months you were both just made redundant, even if it was in slightly dubious circumstances.

Wishbone Ash

frecklz wrote: »

I put in 10 months of hard work, got promoted on my third day in the company, and was more or less running the place. And they got rid of me

Are you telling us everything? If you were so good, why would your employer want to let you go and hire new staff?

It doesn't make sense!

Xiney

They likely have unrealistic sales targets in the current market.

I'm all for aiming high but some companies are just retarded.

wmpdd3

Seems really bad alright.

As far as I can see, there is nothing stopping you applying for the positions for Christmas.

all the stars

frecklz wrote: »

...because it doesn't kick in until you've at least 1 year's service with the company.

I feel your frustration,
i was literally just shy on 1 year in a job - and was fired 2 days after returning from Christmas holidays for no reason other than "the boss" didn't click with my personality.

And said exactly that. Nothing to do with my work, was very diligent emplyee, never rang in sick, did longer hours without complaining, 100% about the customers, mad to be trained - even did so to my own expense to benefit job and was told i couldn't use the new skill as "the boss" was jealous she couldn't do it herself. (and no this aint an exhaggeration.)

I was so upset to lose the job - fired 6.30 saturday evening, never had so much as a warning before for anything, and was told i had no case for unfair dismissal or anything. Was so annoyed that i could be treated so badly and not be able to do anything about it.
:mad::( Hope the recession shuts down the f*cker.... :mad::(

Shelflife

The main problem with employing anybody these days is that once the year is up its very hard to get rid of someone without incurring the wrath of some labour laws.

i had a girl work with me and for the first 2 years she was grand, then she turned on us, started alledgly helping herself to what ever she wanted in the shop from tampons to chocolates , looked after her friends , told customers to shop elsewhere.

we had to install cameras, cancel holidays and hated going to work in our shop because of her, it took us 4 mths of survelliance before we could get rid of her, it was heartbreaking.

its crazy that an employee can say ive had enough and walk out without penalty yet if i have lost trust in an employee i cant get rid of them.

im not saying that we should be able to sack someone at the drop of a hat , but we should be able to get rid of those that are not team players.

Eoin

I do think that a year is a pretty long probationary period - but having only worked in IT, I don't know if there are many areas where it could easily take that long to see if someone is worth keeping.

Shelflife wrote:

im not saying that we should be able to sack someone at the drop of a hat , but we should be able to get rid of those that are not team players.

If an employee is consistently under performing, then there should be disciplinary procedures in place to deal with that. If someone keeps getting poor performance reviews, then surely it can't be that hard to let them go. I think part of the problem is that managers and/or HR don't bother to either implement or follow the procedures in place to deal with this stuff.

Shelflife

If an employee is consistently under performing, then there should be disciplinary procedures in place to deal with that. If someone keeps getting poor performance reviews, then surely it can't be that hard to let them go. I think part of the problem is that managers and/or HR don't bother to either implement or follow the procedures in place to deal with this stuff.[/quote]

Eoin the problem is that her work was fine and she would always do enough to cover herself, you cant get rid of someone because they are a nasty bit of work and you dont trust them.

Its esp hard in a small business where you cant reduce their hours or change their shifts.

the bottom line was she couldnt be trusted and was a sly bit of work, its not easy to document that into official warnings.

Mrs OBumble

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Are you telling us everything? If you were so good, why would your employer want to let you go and hire new staff?

It doesn't make sense!

When you've been working for a while, you find out that quite often in industrial relations, things just don't make sense, and life isn't fair.

At the "low" end of the labour market, employers will quite often take the hit of a bit of lost productivity for the savings of not having someone stay over 12 months and so get protection from employement law.

I agree that it can be difficult to fire someone who needs to be fired - but this is the price of having labour laws that protect the vast majority who don't need to be fired: employees are (in most cases) a lot more vulnerable than employers, and need this sort of protection.

And I agree with the OP that the Act is unfair: I cannot see how any employer could possibly need a one-year probation period.

frecklz

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Are you telling us everything? If you were so good, why would your employer want to let you go and hire new staff?

It doesn't make sense!

They don't want to hire any new staff to replace me - they want a stock of CVs for Christmastime because they can't afford to post the jobs on jobs.ie. That is what they said. I was running that place. The manager didn't know his elbow from his ar$eh*le. Trust me, these idiots don't know what they're doing firing me. Worst company I've ever experienced. To be honest I'm glad to be rid of them, I just didn't fancy being unemployed right now.