Let go for refusing overtime

Dr.Tom

Long story as short as I can here folks....

Today my good friend was told by his employers he would be finishing up this evening.

Yesterday he had a chat with the boss about getting a €2/hr raise or even the possibility of getting time and a half for his overtime (of which he was being paid a flat rate always). He is a qualified meatal fabricator on €10/hr at the moment. They refused and said the current job was very important and had a strict deadline and the costing was already done for the job. He said he would no longer be able to work overtime at the flat rate for them and therefore said he would not be working it anymore but would continue to do his 40hrs at flat rate.

When his boss came down to him this evening he said they have a new fella starting tomorrow who is willing to do the overtime at a flat rate. My buddy asked for his dismissal reason in writing and they refused saying they done nothing wrong and thats irrelevant. He is now going back to them in the morning and demanding they give the true reason for his dismissal on his form to claim the dole. Whats his next move???

munstergirl

Contact nera 1890 80 80 90. Employment rights info.

How long was he working there, if less than year not much he can do.

Dr.Tom

munstergirl wrote: »

Contact nera 1890 80 80 90. Employment rights info.

How long was he working there, if less than year not much he can do.

He is there on and off when work comes in since early summer,5-6 weeks at a time then off again. What has a year to do with it

Owryan

Length of time employed has to do with your termination notice

I would urge your friend to contact nera as from what u have said something doesnt sit right.

Speaking from memory I dont think you can be let go so that someone else can be hired to do your job for less moneu.

tippboi

owryan is right as far as i know. get onto nera immediately. he'll be looking at unfair dismissal!

Dr.Tom

NERA it is then first thing in the morning,they close at 5....

Eoin

Unfair dismissal doesn't apply to people hired within a year of the dismissal. If he's still on probation, then there's very little he can do realistically.

But get on to NERA and see what they recommend.

Owryan

Leaving aside whether he is on probation or not the major issue would be the fact that he is being sacked and replaced by someone else who will do the same job for less. That would be my thinking.

Saying that how long was he doing overtime for a flat rate and was that agreed at the start ? If so then that also changes things.

Oh btw does this fellow have a contract in writing setting out his terms of employment ? That would also refer to any period of notice he should recieve

Eoin

Owryan wrote: »

Leaving aside whether he is on probation or not the major issue would be the fact that he is being sacked and replaced by someone else who will do the same job for less. That would be my thinking.

That's not an issue. If you are fired, you can be replaced. An issue arises if you are made redundant yet the same role is filled within 6 months.

If he is on probation, then this is the major problem. You can be let go for nearly any reason, once it's not discriminating (e.g. race, religion, marital status etc). You can be replaced with someone on more, less or the same amount of money.

Owryan

What I was trying to say was "if he was sacked so they could hire someone for less" and thats the reason for his dismissal.

Just curious, by the sounds of things he would appear to be a "temporary" for want of a better word, so would he still be considered probationary ?

I wonder how his terms of employment are written

RangeR

Owryan wrote: »

What I was trying to say was "if he was sacked so they could hire someone for less" and thats the reason for his dismissal.

It really doesn't matter

I wonder how his terms of employment are written

Neither does this. If he was employed for less than 1 year he has very few, if any, rights of employment. Employer can turn around at a minutes notice and tell you to GTFO.

366 days into employment is when I would start saying I want more for overtime. Not a minute less.

Dr.Tom

RangeR wrote: »

It really doesn't matter



Neither does this. If he was employed for less than 1 year he has very few, if any, rights of employment. Employer can turn around at a minutes notice and tell you to GTFO.

366 days into employment is when I would start saying I want more for overtime. Not a minute less.

And we wonder why the country is the way it is :rolleyes: Would you work for flat rate overtime,essentially an extended basic working week??? Fair is fair and right is right,366 days me bollix....

Mrs OBumble

Dr.Tom wrote: »

Would you work for flat rate overtime,essentially an extended basic working week???

Yes. In fact, I've often been salaried, so have had to work an extended basic working week for no extra pay. Being paid for each hour would be fantastic.

Dr.Tom wrote: »

Fair is fair and right is right,366 days me bollix....

You may not believe that the law is right - if so, talk to your TD about it.

But the law is what governs what employers can do, and the law says that rights kick in at day 366 (367 in leap years ), not before.

BostonB

Dr.Tom wrote: »

And we wonder why the country is the way it is :rolleyes: Would you work for flat rate overtime,essentially an extended basic working week??? Fair is fair and right is right,366 days me bollix....

Its quite common in many industries to do extra hours unpaid. Its not right but its not unusual.

Bandana boy

Dr.Tom wrote: »

And we wonder why the country is the way it is :rolleyes: Would you work for flat rate overtime,essentially an extended basic working week??? Fair is fair and right is right,366 days me bollix....

Why would you pay person A more to do a job than person B ?
Assuming all things are equal in terms of quality of work, experience etc ?

krd

Bandana boy wrote: »

Why would you pay person A more to do a job than person B ?
Assuming all things are equal in terms of quality of work, experience etc ?

Favouritism, pettiness, victimisation.

I have seen an element of "I don't like you....and I don't believe your type deserves money, even if you're outperforming people you work with who are being paid more".

I've worked in places where there has been a huge difference in pay for the same people doing the same job. A few times, when I've felt hard done by, I've done my research and found I was being paid more than most people. Other times I've been screwed around with.

There is a company, I will not name, because it's a small country, but they sack their bottom performing sales people every two months or there abouts - if the sales people aren't performing, they get the sack. A friend who was a manager in this company, was once putting on the job of drawing up a report on the sales people. And she got a big shock. Several of the sales staff, who were coming nowhere near their sales targets were getting twice the basic of the rest of the sales team - they weren't even justifying their base salary. And they weren't getting the sack. She did her report, and it was the sales people with better results (still bad though) were getting sacked. She brought it up with the managers responsible for the sales team, and the answer she got was along the lines of "ah sure well they're the lads". And the managing director knew this was going on.