union rep request denied

I'm writing to get info on this situation my brother is in,ill keep it short and sweet.
He started a job 3 weeks ago (first job and is 21) in a well known supermarket,
seemed to be getting on well, started with a few other lads but in the 3 weeks he was the only one to not get paid, he was told it was a problem on their part, that's fine.
Anyways he turned up to work today and everyone kept telling him he was getting let go, he worked half his shift and was
called into a meeting.At the meeting he was told it was a bad conversation that had to be had,he was given a weeks notice his contract was terminated, he immediately asked for a union rep to be present and was told none needed to be there, he replied "I pay for union rep out of the money i haven't even gotten paid yet for the last 3 weeks so I want one present" and they refused, and he asked again and was refused again. He also asked for the reason he was being let go and they weren't at liberty to say and he was to ask his line manager tomorrow, then was told "why are you sitting there still go back to work"
Seems like a bad way to treat anyone but I'm pretty sure that he should of been allowed a union rep.

what should he do??

Also a good mate of mine works there and had text me to say he heard he got sacked, and that was an hour or two befor he was even brought in.

rahenyrover

Tough situation and poorly handled but ultimately if he was only there 3 weeks he would still have been on probation so they can terminate for any reason provided they give the required notice, which they did. Union rep or not present it would make no difference as they were within their rights.

Rough start to his first job though. Hope his next venture brings him more luck.

It wouldn't of made a difference no, but he paid was a part of the union. but the fact there was none allowed makes a difference as that isn't following procedure.
Yea it's a tough break and they can pretty much do as they like with letting him go, just very un professional.

Nody

Deleted User wrote: »

It wouldn't of made a difference no, but he paid was a part of the union. but the fact there was none allowed makes a difference as that isn't following procedure.
Yea it's a tough break and they can pretty much do as they like with letting him go, just very un professional.

There is no legal right to have a union rep in the meeting nor does the company have to recognize a union in the first place.

Diziet

At 3 weeks, they can let him go for any reason. Maybe his work was not up to standard, maybe they no longer need him, maybe it was a trial and it did not work out. He has no comeback before a year is past, unless it is discrimination on one of the 9 grounds.

Asking for a union rep is wasting everyone's time. Not nice to flatly refuse, but they don't need to do anything other than give notice and pay him for his time. Better to concentrate on the next job.

wildcatares22

Surely the fact they hadn't paid him yet was reason to have some kind of advisory rep or legal advisor.

If I was in his boots, I would name and shame.

Nody

wildcatares22 wrote: »

If I was in his boots, I would name and shame.

//MOD

That's a easy way to get banned; not only will it do sod all but it's also against the boards.ie rules.

//MOD

He wanted rep there to find out why he hadn't been paid, why everyone in the shop knew befor he did, and to find out why the certain manager was shouting at him in front of people.

They do recognise unions there and they take it very seriously so the manager in question may be in trouble. By law you are allowed have someone in a meeting with you as a witness anyways. I actually know the guy who was being a jerk I just can't picture this guy carrying on like that he seems nice anytime I've spoken to him.
And I understand they can let him go when ever that isn't the issue, the issue is there procedures weren't exactly followed and it was very un professional. I'll leave it up to him to sort out when he goes in tomorrow :-)

Diziet

There is nothing to stop him involving the union if he has not been paid. Even without a union they have to pay him. But he has no comeback on being let go. Best not to waste time on it and look for something else.

Diziet

Diziet wrote: »

There is nothing to stop him involving the union if he has not been paid. Even without a union they have to pay him. But he has no comeback on being let go. Best not to waste time on it and look for something else.

Yep this is it, I know everywhere managers are bad, hopefully he gets proper explanation, he already has a new job doing something he likes. I think he just more annoyed how that manager treated him the way he did.

Eoin

Deleted User wrote: »

By law you are allowed have someone in a meeting with you as a witness anyways.

If it's a disciplinary meeting, then you are entitled to bring a witness. However, as you can be let go easily during probation, then I'd imagine that a meeting to be told you're being let go is not a disciplinary meeting as the decision has been made.

Deleted User wrote: »

I actually know the guy who was being a jerk I just can't picture this guy carrying on like that he seems nice anytime I've spoken to him.

Is there any chance that your brother wound them up and/or exaggerated things?

Deleted User wrote:

I know everywhere managers are bad

There are some bad managers. They're not everywhere. Sometimes it is actually the employee who is at fault.

Eoin

Eoin wrote: »

Is there any chance that your brother wound them up and/or exaggerated things?



There are some bad managers. They're not everywhere. Sometimes it is actually the employee who is at fault.

well he isn't at fault for anything ? If he is let go then that's fine, but why was he the last to know that And he hadn't been paid, And no he didn't exaggerate my mate works there too for many years and said this guy is not very nice.
Im sure he was entitled to have a union rep present as they wouldn't answer about his wages for three weekS that's what union reps are there for to help you deal with office stuff? Well as far as I'm aware it is. No reps in my place :-)

davo10

[Deleted User] wrote: »

well he isn't at fault for anything ? If he is let go then that's fine, but why was he the last to know that And he hadn't been paid, And no he didn't exaggerate my mate works there too for many years and said this guy is not very nice.
Im sure he was entitled to have a union rep present as they wouldn't answer about his wages for three weekS that's what union reps are there for to help you deal with office stuff? Well as far as I'm aware it is. No reps in my place :-)

Rosters are done at least a week in advance, if your brother wasn't on it then others would have known before the employer had a chance to inform him. You said he "hadn't been paid", has he been paid now? It can take a while to register with Revenue and set up on payroll with the correct deductions but three weeks is a long time to wait unless he was to be paid monthly. Your brother had a right to ask for a union representative to be present but as this wasn't a disciplinary meeting, the employer was under no obligation to allow one to be present nor to wait for one to attend before letting your brother go. To be honest, people aren't usually let go suddenly 3 weeks after being taken on unless there is a reason for it not working out.

davo10

davo10 wrote: »

Rosters are done at least a week in advance, if your brother wasn't on it then others would have known before the employer had a chance to inform him. You said he "hadn't been paid", has he been paid now? It can take a while to register with Revenue and set up on payroll with the correct deductions but three weeks is a long time to wait unless he was to be paid monthly. Your brother had a right to ask for a union representative to be present but as this wasn't a disciplinary meeting, the employer was under no obligation to allow one to be present nor to wait for one to attend before letting your brother go. To be honest, people aren't usually let go suddenly 3 weeks after being taken on unless there is a reason for it not working out.

He got his tax and everything sorted but wages never came through they said it was their problem. Well basically he is having a meeting with all people involved hopefully he will get his money p45 and and explanation, he also going to report the manager for his actions the three weeks.
Oh and they offered him a weeks notice so he was rostered in for the following week, the day they brought him in was a shift he swapped with another guy but shift swaps happens. Maybe just wasn't working out

Thanks for mail

Eoin

Deleted User wrote: »

Im sure he was entitled to have a union rep present as they wouldn't answer about his wages for three weekS that's what union reps are there for to help you deal with office stuff? Well as far as I'm aware it is. No reps in my place :-)

You're entitled to a witness during disciplinary procedures; not for any meeting at work where a problem might be discussed. That's not to say he couldn't have contacted the union rep and asked them to chase it up or to offer advice on how he could chase it up.

Eoin

Eoin wrote: »

That's not to say he couldn't have contacted the union rep and asked them to chase it up or to offer advice on how he could chase it up.

Yea that's exactly what he should have done, all we be sorted tomorrow now, the manager wanted to just sort it over phone but he wants all involved in a meeting. Not sure why or what he will achieve

therecklessone

I do find myself wondering why your brother isn't asking these questions of his union rep rather than you doing so here on boards.

On a general note it is worth pointing out that contrary to popular opinion, it is possible for a person in the first year of employment to avail themselves of legal protection for dismissal as this link discusses:

http://www.adarehrm.ie/newsletters/2014/october-industrial-relations-newsletter-2014/newsletters/2014/10/16/disputes-and-case-law-ebay-wrongful-dismissal-case-for-an-employee-with-less-than-12-months-service---a-hr-lesson

The TD said that one of her constituents, David Bell, had been wrongly dismissed from the multinational. She said in the Dáil that a Rights Commissioner investigation of the matter concluded with “scathing” findings against the Employer. These included that Mr. Bell was “coerced” into making a statement that self implicated him and that he was denied representation. The Rights Commissioner found amongst other things that the process adopted by Ebay in the context of the dismissal fell far short of fair procedure and natural justice. The Rights Commissioner also found that the dismissal was “wrongful” both substantively and procedurally and made an award of €15,000 in favour of the clamant which the employer has so far refused to pay.

Wrongful Dismissal Not Unfair Dismissal?

The Rights Commissioner found that the dismissal in this case was “wrongful” as opposed to “unfair” and whilst many might think that the difference between the two is semantic, the fact is that is not the case. Indeed in the context of the law and legislation governing dismissals the difference between the two is very significant. The reason why the Rights Commissioner applied the word “wrongful” in this instance is that the case in question was referred to him under the Industrial Relations Acts and not the Unfair Dismissal Acts. This is because the claimant in this case did not have the 12 months employment service with the Employer, which meant the case could not be taken under the Unfair Dismissals Acts.

There is also a case involving An Post along similar lines.

This is why the advice given by HR specialists and the state industrial relations bodies is for employers to ensure they follow their own disciplinary procedures when choosing to terminate employment in such circumstances.

For that reason I would suggest that your brother should have been allowed request a union representative be in attendance at the meeting.

Thanks for the reply and the link, I was asking what he should do about it. I wasn't sure until earlier today that he can still use the union rep although he is no longer with them. Apparently the manager in question it was his first month so he dealt with everything the wrong way, the rep will now do everything on his behalf

Diziet

He should do nothing, he was there 3 weeks and now has another job. What is he expecting to happen? They won't apologise I expect and certainly he is not entitled to additional money. If he has been paid then it's all squared up.

Diziet

Diziet wrote: »

He should do nothing, he was there 3 weeks and now has another job. What is he expecting to happen? They won't apologise I expect and certainly he is not entitled to additional money. If he has been paid then it's all squared up.

He has only been paid one week he got that yesterday, he Said he done 4 weeks my bad. He wants his money he earned. They said he will have it all but giving it to him one week every Thursday. Surely he should get it all on his last day which would be this Friday?
An apology won't do anything anyways and he isn't looking for extra money??

Anyways, the main reason I came on here was to ask what should he do, I wasn't aware he could use the union rep seen as he was finished there.I have that answer now so won't need to continue with this thread.
thanks to everyone that gave advice,
He will get his money (eventually) he has done all he needs to With the rep. They may get few slaps on wrist They may not.
He has new job everyone happy

LegacyUser

Just to point out that he wont be able to get a P45 if they are continuing to pay him out over the next few weeks. They should pay him all monies owed on his leaving date and give him his P45.

Thanks, that's what I thought. They will have to get the finger out.

blindsider

Steady on, folks!

Therecklessone is correct here.

Employment law is rarely as black and white as some suggest.

Every employee - regardless of length of service - has rights.

The organisation MUST follow its own HR processes for dismissing an employee. There is no exception to this.

FLAC and Citizen's Information would be worth a call, as would NERA.

If the OP's brother has the funds, I'd see an Employment Law solicitor...i.e. one who specialises in Employment Law!

Tzardine

blindsider wrote: »

If the OP's brother has the funds, I'd see an Employment Law solicitor...i.e. one who specialises in Employment Law!

I can not see the point honestly. Lad works in a supermarket for 3 weeks and fails probabtion from what I hear. Once he is paid anything outstanding to him what is the point in going to a solicitor. What do you realistically expect the outcome to be.

My advice to the guy would be to move on and be glad he no longer works for them. Sounds like a lucky escape to be honest.

Kristopherus

439000 wrote: »

Just to point out that he wont be able to get a P45 if they are continuing to pay him out over the next few weeks. They should pay him all monies owed on his leaving date and give him his P45.

Absolutely correct. Thats particularly bad form, not giving him 1 final payment and his P45. Do they not realise that he may be paying emergency tax in his new job, until a P45 is submitted.

blindsider

Tzardine wrote: »

I can not see the point honestly. Lad works in a supermarket for 3 weeks and fails probabtion from what I hear. Once he is paid anything outstanding to him what is the point in going to a solicitor. What do you realistically expect the outcome to be.

My advice to the guy would be to move on and be glad he no longer works for them. Sounds like a lucky escape to be honest.

I'd bet you €5 (big spender here!) I know the supermarket. Most of them have been to the LRC/EAT many times before.

They are blatantly messing here (from the OP's post) and the employee has rights - regardless of length of service.

A half decent solr will take the case to a Rights Commissioner - legisaltion is changing, so they're no longer toothless.

BTW - a solicitor was my last option - NERA, FLAC and CI were also mentioned as options........any comment on those?

evolving_doors

Fair play to your brother OP, if he has a nrw job then he has nothing to loose if even to expose their sharp practices (going by your acquaintance it would appear they have form). The fact that they wanted him to come in for a 'chat' means something.
You can also get employment solicitors who do no-win-no-fee.
It sounds to me like they were using the 'trial period' excuse to get then through a busy period.
Even if he looses a case thru union then at least they might be a bit more considerate for the next employee.
The fact they are messing around with wages is unhelpful.
Could it be possible that management were going around saying his work was substandard to his co-workers so it wouldnt look so 'bad when they got what they needed out of him?

Just see what the unions have to say.
At 21 and asking for a rep. to be present!! I was surprised anyone under the age of 30 knew what a union was!

I can't believe folk here are telling him to forget about it and move on. If he feels aggrieved then he's every right to stand up for himself (and future workers too). Who knows, maybe he might have beem totally in the wrong but its best he get advice and learn from this early on.

gozunda

Armelodie wrote: »

Fair play to your brother OP, if he has a nrw job then he has nothing to loose if even to expose their sharp practices (going by your acquaintance it would appear they have form). The fact that they wanted him to come in for a 'chat' means something.
You can also get employment solicitors who do no-win-no-fee.
It sounds to me like they were using the 'trial period' excuse to get then through a busy period.
Even if he looses a case thru union then at least they might be a bit more considerate for the next employee.
The fact they are messing around with wages is unhelpful.
Could it be possible that management were going around saying his work was substandard to his co-workers so it wouldnt look so 'bad when they got what they needed out of him?

Just see what the unions have to say.
At 21 and asking for a rep. to be present!! I was surprised anyone under the age of 30 knew what a union was!

I can't believe folk here are telling him to forget about it and move on. If he feels aggrieved then he's every right to stand up for himself (and future workers too). Who knows, maybe he might have beem totally in the wrong but its best he get advice and learn from this early on.

I've had experience of being an employee and an employer. Experience of both sides of the table so to speak. My experience as an employee has certainly impacted on how I work as an employer. I attended an employer seminar in recent times, which was been run by a well known employer organisation (who for evidential reasons will remain unnamed). The low down was that the organisation was actively promoting aggressive employee policies, some of which imo were bordering on illegal practices. I walked out. Tbh I am not surprised that the Labour court and employment appeal tribunal have huge workloads much of which is created by poor employer practices. It would appear that is in the interest of some employers to create an environment that does not always allow employees to do what is right for them and other employees. These practices are unfortunately been encouraged in some instances.

evolving_doors

gozunda wrote: »

I've had experience of being an employee and an employer. Experience of both sides of the table so to speak. My experience as an employee has certainly impacted on how I work as an employer. I attended an employer seminar in recent times, which was been run by a well known employer organisation (who for evidential reasons will remain unnamed). The low down was that the organisation was actively promoting aggressive employee policies, some of which imo were bordering on illegal practices. I walked out. Tbh I am not surprised that the Labour court and employment appeal tribunal have huge workloads much of which is created by poor employer practices. It would appear that is in the interest of some employers to create an environment that does not always allow employees to do what is right for them and other employees. These practices are unfortunately been encouraged in some instances.

Yes and its companies like this that rely on folk to just put up and move on. Hence the zero hours - you're lucky to have a job these days culture. Just for a few extra pence.