Paulo P

iTrader: (42)

One of my mates was a printer and he had been at his company only 9 months because his previous company went out of business.

On Wednesday morning he arrived at work and was called into the office. He was told that he was being suspended because he had been spotted taking photos of his board that displays what work he has on for the day. His company doesn't have any notices stating that you can't take photos and there is nothing in his contract stating that.

On Thursday he got a letter sent through the post recorded delivery stating that he had a hearing on Friday morning at nine am and they had appointed their own witness but he could also take one of his own.

He attended the hearing and explained that he had taken photos of the board giving details of his work for the day because it was easier than writing it down and he copied it down when he was at his machine and deleted the text, they said they didn't have anything on his to dismiss him under gross misconduct so they would issue a verbal warning and they were considering making him redundant instead

I've just seen him tonight and on Saturday morning he received a letter via recorded post stating that he had been made redundant

I can't see how they can single him out for redundancy after a hearing for something that they had no grounds for and surely it cannot be legal to make someone redundant by post If they say you can't take photos surely they need to tell the employees

What does everyone think about that?

Paul

Hoppy

I think you are minding somebody else's (important) business without the full story.

I say this because some kind of formal employment procedure has obviously been gone through, with at least an attempt to stick to employment law. And paramount in law is that people are not made redundant, only jobs are. In a redundancy situation, stuff about photographing things is quite irrelevant...

If your mate is being 'let go' it is becuase either his job function is no longer required or his role is being inorporated into the work schedule of another employee/employees.

Richard.

PS I am no expert, this is just common knowledge

Simon 69

Are you jealous because he's got some mates?

Paulo P

iTrader: (42)

Sounds like it

Hoppy

Yeah, that'll be the reason Sorry for replying.

Edited to add, somebody has just Infracted you, Simon. It wasn't me. Must have been one of my mates.

DCI Gene Hunt

You appear to have many

Hoppy

DCI

Thinking about the situation a bit more, redundancy is often a euphemism used to get rid of somebody. A sign of the times maybe.

But in these cases, it's tied up with some kind of 'accommodation agreement' which effectively side-steps the law, usually in exchange for a cheque.

Still don't think Paul has the full story though.

Richard.

Matteeboy

You have zero rights under 12 months.

And companies can find all sorts of excuses if they want to get rid of you.

Paulo P

iTrader: (42)

I've seen the letter he was sent asking him to appear for the hearing and I'm waiting for him to scan in the redundancy letter and send it over.

Maybe I don't know the full story but I've stated what I do know.

jaytc2003

iTrader: (1)

not true if you have a contract of employment which he should have

true, but they have to do it within law. This doesnt/wouldnt stop them trying to make things as uncomfortable as possible though (within the law of course)

Paulo P

iTrader: (42)

I know that hence why I would have ignored the photography angle and just called him into the office and said "sorry we've got to let you go"

It seems like they wanted to sack him for the photography thing but didn't have the grounds so they've got him out this way.

Simon 69

Your reply was rude and of no worth, rather like my own.

mattvortex

They're either letting him go to cut costs in current economic climate or they did'nt like him or his work-but they couldnt make him redundant in that case as legally,as i understand they would'nt be able to re-employ anyone.
Unless they change the job title!

Jamo

iTrader: (23)

how things have changed since that television interview then "GM"

chocolate_o_brian

iTrader: (22)

I'd also like to point out re. the hearing. If I remember correclty, aren't you allowed at least 24 hours notice for any form of disciplinary hearing? That should be regardless of time served if I'm correct??

With regards redundancy, unless the role was being incorporated into another/others job roles, or the job was becoming obsolete (for whatever reasons - financially, over staffing etc), then they can't use this line as a get out clause. Otherwise surely every time they wanna jack someone in, "sorry mate don't need you anymore, your being made redundant as of erm... now", and then go employ someone else straight after. See my point.

MMT WRX

I think your right, but they will probably now claim there’s no link between the 2 issues.
If there were witnesses at the meeting then they are important and should be able to testify to what was actually said. If he didn't actually break any rules, then there was no case to answer and shouldn't have received any form of discipline at all, so a verbal warning shouldn't have even been issued. They could have told him(verbally warned but not recorded) that photography was not acceptable in future and this should be followed up with a notice to all employees. If he has a witness that can testify they actually threatened him with redundancy because they realised they had no grounds to actually dismiss him then this is obviously personal and as has already been stated jobs not people become redundant. If this is the situation I believe he has a case providing he has a witness that will testify. I dont think 12 months service would apply in this case.
If I were your friend I would contact ACAS for some initial advice.