Let go after 11 months but still asked to stay on

Sin City

Just looking for advice on this one

Someone I know was called into office yesterday and was told her boss wants to hire someone with more experience. She was going to be there a year on May 1st. She was not bad at here job (considering she received no training from boss) had passed her probationary period. but was told she was to be let go weeks before being there full time.

Her boss has now said she can stay up until June while he finds a replacement (possibly an intern as he is really tight with money etc and thought of hiring one before)

If she has been told she was being let go but works up until June what happens then, as in she would be working passed 12 months required for permenancy. Does she have any rights that go along with it

Can she just be let go without any disciplinary action having to take place
She wasn't bad at her job, boss seemed happy with her, never any issues with work, timekeeping etc. Can she just be let go like that

Again I know legal advice cant be given here so opinions or as close to fact as we can get here

Thanks


SC

Ken.

Your not entitled to permanency after 1 year. You just have more rights and are harder to get rid of. Not impossible,just harder.

sopretty

Have they documented anything in relation to your friend or has it all been oral?

Have they stated why they need someone more experienced? Is it that she is incapable of carrying out her role as it stands, or that they wish to advance the role/change the role?

Sin City

sopretty wrote: »

Have they documented anything in relation to your friend or has it all been oral?

Have they stated why they need someone more experienced? Is it that she is incapable of carrying out her role as it stands, or that they wish to advance the role/change the role?

He hasnt documeted anything all oral. He hasn't explained why he just said he wants someone with more experience he knew she had no experience when she started. He never complained about her work before so its only after 11 months he said anything

Sin City

ken wrote: »

Your not entitled to permanency after 1 year. You just have more rights and are harder to get rid of. Not impossible,just harder.

But you'd need a good reason . You'd need to be bad at your job or timekeeping

sopretty

Sin City wrote: »

He hasnt documeted anything all oral. He hasn't explained why he just said he wants someone with more experience he knew she had no experience when she started. He never complained about her work before so its only after 11 months he said anything

All I know is the following (and I don't even know for sure).

1. The one year thing relates to Unfair Dismissal - after one year there, she can sue for unfair dismissal, if such a thing happens.
2. If you are on rolling contracts, you are only entitled to a permanent contract after 4 years.
3. I am not sure whether she would be entitled to redundancy after 1 year. I.e. if they decide that her role is redundant and that they wish to advance the role to one for which she is not qualified. I think you may need to be 2 years there before being entitled to redundancy (open to correction on this).

Basically, depending on what they intend doing in June, her rights would change. I.e. how they approach it. Be it being let go due to inadequate performance, or the role changing.

Does that make sense?

Sin City

sopretty wrote: »

All I know is the following (and I don't even know for sure).

1. The one year thing relates to Unfair Dismissal - after one year there, she can sue for unfair dismissal, if such a thing happens.
2. If you are on rolling contracts, you are only entitled to a permanent contract after 4 years.
3. I am not sure whether she would be entitled to redundancy after 1 year. I.e. if they decide that her role is redundant and that they wish to advance the role to one for which she is not qualified. I think you may need to be 2 years there before being entitled to redundancy (open to correction on this).

Basically, depending on what they intend doing in June, her rights would change. I.e. how they approach it. Be it being let go due to inadequate performance, or the role changing.

Does that make sense?

It does make sense. Thing is its a secretarial job for a financial adviser. She has over 10 years secretarial experience jusr not in that capacity which employer knew when he took her on
Never an issue with work. But always wanted the impossible done yesterday. The pay is minimal so he wont get someone with that experience at the price being paid

main issue was if she stays passed the 12 months does she gain any employee rights?

sopretty

Sin City wrote: »

It does make sense. Thing is its a secretarial job for a financial adviser. She has over 10 years secretarial experience jusr not in that capacity which employer knew when he took her on
Never an issue with work. But always wanted the impossible done yesterday. The pay is minimal so he wont get someone with that experience at the price being paid

main issue was if she stays passed the 12 months does she gain any employee rights?

I believe the only right she obtains is the right to sue for unfair dismissal. I'm open to correction on this.

So he wants "someone with more experience" but is willing to replace her with an intern?

I don't know about her rights, but he sounds like he's trying to dump her for some free labour.

sopretty

Deleted User wrote: »

So he wants "someone with more experience" but is willing to replace her with an intern?

I don't know about her rights, but he sounds like he's trying to dump her for some free labour.

The employer CAN change the role, effectively making the OP's friend's current role 'redundant'. They can then employ someone suitable for the new role.

The employer can NOT tell the employee that their role is no longer required and THEN hire someone into the exact same role.

The employer CAN fire an employee, according to proper procedures, due to lack of performance etc. After 1 year, if due process is not followed, the employee can sue for unfair dismissal.

That is my understanding of the situation.

Sin City

Deleted User wrote: »

So he wants "someone with more experience" but is willing to replace her with an intern?

I don't know about her rights, but he sounds like he's trying to dump her for some free labour.

Thats exactly what I'm thinking
He really is miserly
he over paid by € 100 over a few months and when he realised he made her pay it back instantly. She was unaware as he is fiddling her tax all the time so she never got an exact amount every month. She had to go asking him to pay her evey month and doesn't give out payslips unless you demand them.

I do think ill see the job being advertised soon for an internship

billy few mates

And he's a financial adviser....?

Tordelback

Sin City wrote: »

She had to go asking him to pay her evey month and doesn't give out payslips unless you demand them.

Well she has him there. Payslips are a legal obligation under Section 4 of the Payment of Wages act. The overpayment/repayment is a non-event, but a failure to provide prompt and regular payslips is an issue for exactly that reason.

The issue in general is simply that after a year an employee has the right to claim for Unfair Dismissal, but that's all: is it really winnable ('look, the needs of the business changed from when I took her on') and is that really worth it, if the position is low paid and the situation is as frustrating as it seems? Maybe better to move on.

One thing though, in the matter of keeping someone on for 13 months but effectively 'pretending' they were let go after 11 months, the Rights Commissioner would probably take a very dim view and may rule that they were indeed entitled to the protection of the Act. After all, their payslip is going to show 13 months employment.